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 1LbkzU-0000yh-KD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:17:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87353E0532; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173001pub.verizon.net (vms173001pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B70E0532 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([68.162.77.20]) by vms173001.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KFJ007MFNGYBEO7@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:17:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779EA1759E10 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:17:21 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <49A33C8F.6030704@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:17:19 -0500 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090104) 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 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) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org> <20090223132202.1cd1337e@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A3357B.1030403@gentoo.org> <20090223234926.28d9f1d2@snowcone> In-reply-to: <20090223234926.28d9f1d2@snowcone> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 305a87e3-f42b-4e33-b848-d4557b3b527a X-Archives-Hash: f83a948794c29de37d80ef0b5a017397 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:47:07 -0500 > Richard Freeman wrote: >> It seems like we could be up to ebuild-kde4-3.2 in six months. > > Why on earth do people think that? Of all the crazy being thrown > around, this is the only one wearing a tutu. > I suppose I'm exaggerating a little deliberately to make a point. It isn't so much that I don't think that people designing the extensions won't use sense, but that we're still potentially facing multiple new file extensions per year. Maybe not 15, but certainly 1-3. That can add up fast. If we had been doing this all along then we'd probably expect there to be upwards of 10-20 file extensions in portage today. It just seems like it isn't the best solution. You can get the same effect by just sticking something in a comment line a few lines into the ebuild in a fixed position. Sure, the file might need to be read twice, but unless the reading takes place widely separated in time the file is going to be in the cache the second time around. With proper caching you only need to scan files that have changed - we can't have that many daily commits, can we? I'll probably refrain from commenting further - I trust the council to weigh all the options and go with whatever makes the most sense. However, I did want to make it clear that I don't think that the folks advocating this approach are out to release 47 EAPI releases per year or anything...