From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc5Xc-0000aN-3w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:14:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17F93E06BE; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:14:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.159]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBAAE06BE for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so160969fga.14 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:14:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=19iURv7n90BNjsXu8fN143LZEFqAjp8j1M0VDulFzgQ=; b=g28YwbJrkCYjj+QcoNNQYVSkIcAjQ0JPGuhH65Zh2jg7xhFUvXVG97F1dFBUGst6NN S1hvkN45TyUmlBhD97wKAfapzy4+o6TJ2ccIyrLGyspK0+R+hcuJRYM7Yo7h1IRQMmhw Fj3noJ0L2N13HRwFKxXd83lyxp31AP21lWACw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=DubaVGiKAwo6gX0Fl+GfXo3V69AJPovdzOAmbJXY51+LXjwWLAywqRC0HHUo5vFi5k 6Y5EHWtajCl99jK1nKCuM9THilw8zWyv4FQRuRitQ5gnzHTozLylcH07ZzZy2NIOTyKW bFPB6/KeDPFDqnfojiYS776Ak4oxUQwhoZfRk= Received: by 10.86.79.19 with SMTP id c19mr47152fgb.50.1235513654156; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d38sm420033ugf.23.2009.02.24.14.14.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:14:06 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090224221406.57376d44@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <1235513513.3839.5@spike> References: <20090224164812.3795d777@snowcone> <1235510283.3839.4@spike> <20090224212304.56aaf04e@snowcone> <1235513513.3839.5@spike> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/E7apPLYguhJc65a7uuZdOcr"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: a6f1f0a1-bbfb-4f91-aa04-b7bd448a3d00 X-Archives-Hash: 911e31c7e7845f3f4097c602bf21f4a3 --Sig_/E7apPLYguhJc65a7uuZdOcr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:11:47 +0000 Roy Bamford wrote: > > Except that once we have EAPI in the file extension, we can change > > anything we want in arbitrary ways without having to worry about > > backwards compatibility, so we won't need silly hacks. >=20 > Your response amounts to empty assertions. Never is a long time. > It reminds me of a similar assertion that "640kB [of RAM] will be=20 > enough for anyone". Er, no. Think about it. If EAPI is in file extension, the only concern for backwards compatibility is not reusing an existing valid extension. All we have to do is use a new EAPI value, and then we can change whatever we like because non-supporting package managers will ignore it. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/E7apPLYguhJc65a7uuZdOcr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmkcTAACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEf1QCeLoZLnwyP+VZMiMQu+OGHQNkg nygAoJVgP2E4aetQktnXLjeSUzU0AW9C =GB05 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/E7apPLYguhJc65a7uuZdOcr--