On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Martin Vaeth <va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth: > > > >> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would > >> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection: > > > > Not really doable since this is explicitly defined as such in > > EAPI=5 PMS. > > > > Retroactively changing PMS is probably not a good idea. > > So keeping PMS is more important than usability? Being supported is more important than running into breakage. > Great! One must know where to put emphasis and keep > an unfortunate chosen detail forever (or, as experience > concerning EAPI upgrades shows, at least for decades) > in order to fulfill a nonsense bureoucracy which probably > at most 3 packages use, currently. Certainly, this is > more important than user experience! Does support increase user experience? What about breakage? Let's say I want to have PM support for bug #449094 and do bug #472906. I can go introduce eapi-5-kernel, which implements virtual sub slot pass-through; which is so incredibly nice as it rebuilds external kernel modules when you build a new kernel, sub slot rebuild style. But nobody really backs me up as it is not really standard, apparently it then breaks for other kernels in the Portage tree. And as nobody agreed on it, it can't be supported; because with its design certain cases have not been taken into account. So, let's not rush this magic eapi-5-kernel feature and do it properly as part of eapi-6 or later. Rather have a handful of supported EAPIs than hundreds of unsupported EAPIs. The supported ones work; as for the unsupported ones, I doubt it. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
