From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MexVZ-0005jn-TB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:48:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCE56E027F; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:48:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC14E027F for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:48:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BDA64DBD for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:48:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IUC8kxMlcgv1 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:48:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B3E66F5B for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MexVL-0000Gu-G2 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:48:03 +0200 Received: from static24-89-92-122.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.89.92.122]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:48:03 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-89-92-122.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:48:03 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant' Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:48:16 -0600 Message-ID: <20090822144816.57562ae1@gentoo.org> References: <90b936c0908121058y5fd25cfcm67a19761b1130896@mail.gmail.com> <20090821224638.1f797d4b@snowmobile> <200908220110.33794.reavertm@poczta.fm> <200908220145.00956.rbu@gentoo.org> <9f2790160908211729w79e1a838i8daf2e3df096c6bb@mail.gmail.com> <20090821194537.26537032@gentoo.org> <4A8F82F1.9080800@trelane.net> 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; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/xCGcrkbnDwC0Tpgcp7aP2NN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-89-92-122.yorkton.accesscomm.ca X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.16.5; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: f50c592d-33a6-4df0-8352-3e776985c751 X-Archives-Hash: f9f38a02efef8a9c1b2b81cc306aea84 --Sig_/xCGcrkbnDwC0Tpgcp7aP2NN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:32:33 -0400 Andrew D Kirch wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:29:12 -0700 > > Chip Parker wrote: > > > > =20 > >> If you were building a house, and the blueprints had been signed off > >> on calling for 1 meter high doors, but the builder had built in 2 > >> meter high doors, would you then go back to the builder and require > >> him to do something that makes those doors unusable for the vast > >> majority of people entering the house? > >> =20 > > > > Package managers can implement whatever extra bells and whistles they l= ike, > > but they still have to follow the spec. Your metaphor is flawed in that > > you're talking about a single house here. If it doesn't match the plan= you > > do an as-built and file a deviation with the registrar. The situation = here > > is more like if you build a hundred houses to code, and then one above = code, > > and then change code to match the one house and bulldoze the rest for n= ot > > meeting minimal requirements. You're punishing anyone who implements a > > package manager to spec if you keep changing the spec in incompatible w= ays. > > =20 > Right, this is called "punishing innovation". It's a hobby of > bureaucrats everywhere. > It could also be said to be "punishing excellence". We've had a lot of > political systems > which try to implement a design which weeds out both the mediocre, and > the excellent, > leaving us with the average all have been failures. The reason why > they fail is that it is > the above average who do the heaviest lifting. No, you're still missing the point. Innovation is good. Rewarding innovation is good, which is why we change the spec in backwards-compatible ways to incorporate the best ideas every so often, through new EAPIs. What is bad is when one particular package manager innovates and we retroactively change the spec to match what it does, leaving all the PM's that operate according to what the spec previously said to do up the river. For the record, I use portage. I have always used portage. I just don't s= ee the point of having a specification on how to write a PM that works with Gentoo if we keep changing that spec on whim. --=20 fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 --Sig_/xCGcrkbnDwC0Tpgcp7aP2NN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkqQWZQACgkQiqiDRvmkBmLryQCgmM5liWPS0fFQruBGGFwkXz6Y Y50AoIn9EqKADn4EQU2iFOzaXOXvkFeG =Xa2k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/xCGcrkbnDwC0Tpgcp7aP2NN--