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 1R4cEg-0007nN-Ih for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:29:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC4A721C07E; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com (mail-wy0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF5821C020 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so5012974wyj.11 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.216.182.9 with SMTP id n9mr1088606wem.54.1316194113822; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.216.169.72 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:27:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110916160408.787ffcc9@pomiocik.lan> References: <201109131756.19714.vapier@gentoo.org> <20110914020228.GP31178@comet> <20110914021449.GA5106@localhost.hobnob.com> <20110914191641.GQ31178@comet> <20110915002949.GA16239@localhost> <20110916030019.GA5000@comet> <20110916090605.GD16239@localhost> <20110916123014.GC5000@comet> <20110916160408.787ffcc9@pomiocik.lan> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:27:33 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kPQDTE2ehYglbpVUreC0lt62v6Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new `usex` helper From: Alec Warner To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: dberkholz@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 9d5eb1722454644d774b2f9ec5c33e9e On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> > Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the >> > way, lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll >> > dredge up the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI. >> >> I see EAPI as a nice thing for standardizing features that are >> implemented in the PM so they work identically across portage, >> pkgcore, and paludis. But I don't think that implementing things in >> the PM when they could go in an eclass is automatically the best >> choice. It dramatically slows down the speed of iteration, >> prototyping, and bug fixing. > > What is more important is that it takes the code further from devs. > I like to see the code I use, and be able to do anything about it if > necessary. Not to see a spec and three different implementation, of > which two use random hacks which I can't do anything about unless I > start to implement PM-specific anti-hacks in my code. Just as an aside, every package mangler in Gentoo is open source. I don't see why you can't 'see' the code it is using. Now you might say 'ahhh C++ makes my eyes bleed' (as an aside, go read versionator eclass ;p) or 'eww portage is ugly' but every time I hear it I am less convinced that it is a good excuse. > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny >