On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:14:47 -0600 RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > non-system packages, the only thing stopping people from using > > EAPI 1 where useful is ludditism. > > While most of us appreciate your desire to move forward, ad-hominem > attacks (however subtle) really only serve to damage your point.
You're aware that that's not his real name, right? > That said, this is the typical developer-wants-shiny-object, > engineering-wants-stability drama played out day after day in > corporations worldwide, and nothing ever gets solved until someone > puts up. The stability issues, or lack there-of, in EAPI 1 are well understood by those of us who were behind deciding what went into EAPI 1. There is no issue with using EAPI 1 where appropriate for non-system packages. EAPI 1 is a small, well defined, well understood set of additions to EAPI 0. > Please - for the rest of the community's sake, get over > yourselves and your high ideals and spend some of this energy doing > something positive. Like pushing for ratification/completion of > EAPI=0 so none of you have room to complain. Really, ratification of EAPI 0 doesn't affect any of this. It makes no more sense to say that we can't use EAPI 1 until EAPI 0 is ratified than it does to say that we can't use EAPI 0 until EAPI 0 is ratified. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
