On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500 Donnie Berkholz <dberkh...@gentoo.org> 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. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
