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 1NxPYM-00051R-Gb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:55:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBE51E08ED; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com (mail-bw0-f219.google.com [209.85.218.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5582FE0587 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so25077bwz.26 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT) 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=18IhvqL3Dg/3dLGlkWztJBHDyabwTITrxOuccLRaK1c=; b=DtTS1Y5d5B47Os1SQ8RUce6Pk2X/AK2jjrXtznEhYTtHcR8FK9KiOypnsVDqH7SvTn gp7W4b7ij+ztM47Hs5jPS+hGj60mhUgioQ6PYMK94nnj2hmMDFieFIyNxd4wZhSq3Tmk x3yHrHADwIZLsSk+BGiHtejdynvJ6NnF+hx2U= 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=NeMqXDcAcgkr7DzIMIv+h/KNe3OqMNwUO7/pHn2dtHgWqPOfdZIIBMhj0C2zoQkRoe VSy+5l/dSB9eEikwCP/0wPohOQl7nFAejhJdJT3Q1A/RFBwm4XIMhPi8CfBQ+zPgEEQt M0UFqUmxEI8FZcDAY2RfCp+JkfU5x+jm2OuWw= Received: by 10.204.146.148 with SMTP id h20mr1808251bkv.185.1270148130397; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowmobile ([92.24.222.23]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l1sm69406552bkl.20.2010.04.01.11.55.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:55:24 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative Message-ID: <20100401195524.4dd19d01@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: References: <20100331092035.GA11663@hrair> <20100401114907.5ab3fe67@snowmobile> <20100401111827.GM11663@hrair> <201004011804.49097.levertond@googlemail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4 (GTK+ 2.18.5; i686-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; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/zRxyQR3BFQ+uUkrPhkHG.oB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: d745fc31-84c6-494b-baec-3dee5ed69e1a X-Archives-Hash: 9df1ff7e9fee6a29c886b2373072ba0f --Sig_/zRxyQR3BFQ+uUkrPhkHG.oB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:39:43 +0300 Dror Levin wrote: > > If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't > > Ciaran. > =20 > I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke. Could you point out where I've been personal and insulting in this discussion please? I'd like to learn for future reference the kind of technical criticisms that you mistake for insults so that I can phrase them in a way less likely to mislead in the future. > I really like this attitude, though. Once you're done criticizing the > technological aspects of some proposal you start raising concerns > about how hard it is to implement features for Portage, how long that > takes, etc. Well, since that's not really constructive, I suggest you > keep those concerns to yourself. So you're saying that when designing EAPIs, we should no longer consider Portage implementation time? Currently, one of the requirements for including a feature in an EAPI is that the Portage people expect to be able to deliver it quickly. We've left out a huge number of widely requested features from previous EAPIs simply because they weren't considered deliverable by Portage in a realistic timeframe, and when selecting features we've been careful to pick those that require the minimum total amount of work on the Portage side. Hence pkg_pretend -- although a subset of its functionality could be handled in other ways, it's considered most practical to go for the single cheapest feature that implements everything people need. Would you prefer a perfect EAPI ten years from now and nothing until then, or a better EAPI than one that we currently have one year from now? The Council has been pretty explicit in wanting the latter, so if you want policy to be changed to the former then you'll need to take it up with them. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/zRxyQR3BFQ+uUkrPhkHG.oB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAku07BwACgkQ96zL6DUtXhErOwCg3oExgso+PYdJKt6eT2zb5YAx wAoAn01C70EZby4+mAqON4XA9zOgRlO+ =5Rne -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/zRxyQR3BFQ+uUkrPhkHG.oB--