From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J6lk5-0004uf-CT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:45:09 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBOBiHU9020177; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:44:17 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBOBgKlR017710 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:42:21 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FE56521B for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:42:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.029 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.029 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.503, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z2lRrboZTwJd for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:42:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF91652C3 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J6lao-0007fe-4R for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:35:34 +0000 Received: from 82.153.78.74 ([82.153.78.74]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:35:34 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.153.78.74 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:35:34 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:19:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: <200712172320.01988.peper@gentoo.org> <47692CB8.1050006@gentoo.org> <20071219110544.55ec45be@altair.jimramsay.com> <476AB9E0.5030702@gentoo.org> <20071221005153.730a154d@blueyonder.co.uk> <476B2C02.20606@gentoo.org> <20071221030704.0d1eb3e2@blueyonder.co.uk> <476B8E37.2060506@gmail.com> <20071221100137.421d5934@blueyonder.co.uk> <476BBFB5.1000908@gentoo.org> <20071221133807.300642e3@blueyonder.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.78.74 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 7d3ef788-47bc-4d0b-b4e3-c81505140c21 X-Archives-Hash: 1d1073aa9e207ca05cfb1d0c374f7af6 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100 >> The majority of devs don't want to know how portage or paludis work >> internally, that's not what interests most of us. > > Which is fine. But then, the majority of devs shouldn't expect to be > able to provide opinions when it comes to the more technical aspects. > Yes, but they can smell a nasty hack when they see one; starting with the fact that the API is no longer as clean. >> On a somewhat related note : I noticed that among the massive thread, >> you have brought up several times the issue of cache generation, >> saying that it was a complicated process. >> >> Maybe this process needs to be reworked before the whole EAPI issue >> can be resolved? > > That's partly what the GLEP is doing. Making it any simpler, > unfortunately, would involve either a huuuuuuge performance hit (we're > talking two orders of magnitude here) or removing metadata from the > ebuilds entirely -- neither of which are viable solutions. > Oh, I thought this wasn't about performance? Nor indeed about cache generation. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list