Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant'

[Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net>]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:29:12 -0700
> Chip Parker <infowolfe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> 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?
>>     
>
> Package managers can implement whatever extra bells and whistles they like,
> 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 not
> meeting minimal requirements.  You're punishing anyone who implements a
> package manager to spec if you keep changing the spec in incompatible ways.
>   
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.

Andrew D Kirch
Funtoo.org