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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-47564-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1R3i8F-0004mk-9R
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:35:35 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03D2421C066;
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:35:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BC921C029
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:34:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so1493102wyg.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer
:mime-version:content-type;
bh=ym8dnmkpVLCdU++Yefn2VCTDCjifb3biHFRQmuF6Ego=;
b=IEAFHbI9z1n2ZOy7TlqNsFqa6+Bs15An90VGQx6wOyXwkRxx7P8eFtsTcKr6Kd02cq
KQmO3yylqaV2Or/F85N0RW2EdDrUerO3KRYwE+j6EBtEhHT70NJGJf4bj+Zk5o6vqHdW
G5AK5rihchecI23X7S6p1UQNbR1aY64TKOWbE=
Received: by 10.227.11.194 with SMTP id u2mr722669wbu.76.1315978486282;
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (cpc1-broo4-0-0-cust780.14-2.cable.virginmedia.com. [86.4.215.13])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fg18sm2732045wbb.24.2011.09.13.22.34.45
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:34:38 +0100
From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new `usex` helper
Message-ID: <20110914063438.09cfc9f7@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110914020228.GP31178@comet>
References: <201109131756.19714.vapier@gentoo.org>
<20110914020228.GP31178@comet>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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_/rV+Ru=YHxVikdDE8_TB7p/k"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: c1d66409e863a1813a2be1d105797e6d
--Sig_/rV+Ru=YHxVikdDE8_TB7p/k
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:02:28 -0500
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > useful enough for EAPI ? or should i just stick it into
> > eutils.eclass ? OR BOTH !?
>=20
> I prefer to avoid EAPI whenever possible, as it just makes things
> slower and more complex.
Sticking it in an EAPI *shouldn't* be slow and more complex. There are
three reasons why it is, and they should all be within Gentoo's
ability to solve.
The first reason is that when we did what was then called EAPI 3,
several Council members refused to put in more than one hour's work
every month. To get an EAPI out quickly, we need Council members who
are prepared to do a bit of homework, and to read proposals before a
meeting and to comment on mailing lists rather than only bringing up
questions (most of which have already been answered on the lists) at
meetings. That shouldn't be too much to ask, and if it is, Council
members should be prepared to delegate.
The second is that it's impossible to get an accurate estimate from the
Portage people for how long it will take to implement something. We
were assured before the then-EAPI-3 proposals were submitted to the
Council that all would be easy and quick to implement in Portage. We
were told after approval that implementation would take a month, when
it took a year to get just partial implementations of some features.
This needs to be addressed -- to a certain extent we can drop features,
but EAPI 4 currently has nasty problems (prefix flag needs to be in
IUSE, and people are refusing to do that) due to one of two
interdependent features being dropped (strict IUSE) without the
standard wording for the other (use dependency defaults) being changed.
The third is that there are a few people intent on preventing any new
EAPI from ever happening. The solution here is to tell them that the
decision has been made, that Gentoo is going to use EAPIs and a
specification whether they like it or not, and that they can either help
or keep quiet. No-one has the time to deal with a small group of
individuals who pop up and yell "PMS sucks! EAPIs are bad! Portage is
reality! Code to an implementation not a standard!" every time anyone
asks for a new feature.
None of this should be difficult.
--=20
Ciaran McCreesh
--Sig_/rV+Ru=YHxVikdDE8_TB7p/k
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk5wPPIACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEa7gCdHTIxPfF5O1JnvtkohSfOny6Q
4m4An3C5q4UzrE19IuFtzvHuXzlv/mUS
=NZjK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Sig_/rV+Ru=YHxVikdDE8_TB7p/k--