On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:39:43 +0300 Dror Levin <sp...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't > > Ciaran. > > I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke.
Could you point out where I've been personal and insulting in this discussion please? I'd like to learn for future reference the kind of technical criticisms that you mistake for insults so that I can phrase them in a way less likely to mislead in the future. > I really like this attitude, though. Once you're done criticizing the > technological aspects of some proposal you start raising concerns > about how hard it is to implement features for Portage, how long that > takes, etc. Well, since that's not really constructive, I suggest you > keep those concerns to yourself. So you're saying that when designing EAPIs, we should no longer consider Portage implementation time? Currently, one of the requirements for including a feature in an EAPI is that the Portage people expect to be able to deliver it quickly. We've left out a huge number of widely requested features from previous EAPIs simply because they weren't considered deliverable by Portage in a realistic timeframe, and when selecting features we've been careful to pick those that require the minimum total amount of work on the Portage side. Hence pkg_pretend -- although a subset of its functionality could be handled in other ways, it's considered most practical to go for the single cheapest feature that implements everything people need. Would you prefer a perfect EAPI ten years from now and nothing until then, or a better EAPI than one that we currently have one year from now? The Council has been pretty explicit in wanting the latter, so if you want policy to be changed to the former then you'll need to take it up with them. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
