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 1SiNkL-0005vn-5I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:39:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D50A121C098; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:38:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5A421C091 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFD61B4025 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.571, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 Foocem0b1z4X for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D891B403E for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SiNis-0002Dv-AD for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:37:46 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:37:46 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:37:46 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5 Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4FE231BA.6020404@gentoo.org> <20120620213518.4baf8150@googlemail.com> <4FE24408.40302@gentoo.org> <1340258936.2470.5.camel@belkin4> <20120621080039.0724cf8d@googlemail.com> <1340263510.2470.18.camel@belkin4> <20120621083945.345d661a@googlemail.com> <1340438017.5979.11.camel@belkin4> <20120623103833.6b9cb91e@googlemail.com> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.138 (Der Geraet; GIT 66040af /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7134579c-44f4-402f-8ffa-58e863a97ffa X-Archives-Hash: 79312f867de06cc9ef98601a09c17543 Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:38:33 +0100 as excerpted: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:53:37 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote= : >> Don't you see this way of handling things, with such and obscure way o= f >> getting things accepted for every EAPI is really hurting us? >=20 > What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what th= e > problem is, how it will be solved or what the impact on users or > developers will be, and then taking up everyone's time with complaints > when they don't get magical flying unicorns instantly. >=20 > If you want something, you either have to do the work yourself, or find > someone to do it. And here's the thing: you're assuming that "the work" > is trivial, which for some of the things you're discussing it really > isn't. The PMS wording is the trivial bit that comes at the end once th= e > problem and solution have been worked out. Without weighing in on either side of the technical details of this=20 debate, it's possible to observe two things: 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't endear=20 you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject an argument= =20 simply because it comes from you. 2) PMS is supposed to be about specifying things well enough that all=20 three PMs can implement compatible ebuild/eclass/etc interpretation and=20 execution. 3) Given the above, it would be of /great/ benefit to your argument if=20 either Zac or Brian (or preferably both) stepped up from time to time and= =20 said yes, this is really an issue. Not that they'd necessarily reply to everything you do, but if they could= =20 reply once in support, such that you could refer people back to those=20 replies from elsewhere... This would be of particular help concerning the multi-arch work where=20 there's already an implementation for portage, but it is argued a proper=20 spec is still lacking. Obviously if it's approved Brian's going to need=20 to implement it as well as you, and having him too say there's not enough= =20 there to do so, ideally with his estimation of where the process is in=20 terms of work needed, as well, would go quite a long way. Similarly but=20 from a different angle, if Zac says that he's not satisfied with the=20 specification even with portage's already implementing what's there and=20 having it proven to work (for whatever definition of "work"), that goes=20 quite a way toward giving the argument for a better spec some serious=20 support, as well. If you can't get those statements, then round and round the discussion=20 will go until people are sick, and until people simply ignore your=20 position and push /something/ thru, which would be a real shame if it=20 could be practically[1] made better, or the practical ideal of PMS ends=20 up getting lost in the results. And if you /can/ get those statements, why are we still going round and=20 round with all this? (Again, references to said statements may be=20 necessary from time to time, given the quantity of posts and the=20 likelihood single answers in support of your position could be missed.) [1] Practically: favorable cost/benefit ratio for the work needed. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman