On Tuesday 13 December 2005 02:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:49:31 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | No need for a glep as far as portage support goes anymore than Ciaran > | needs a glep to change or add syntax highlighting in vim. > > The difference is, Vim syntax scripts are well established, and there > aren't any design issues to solve. Multiple repository support clearly > *isn't* obvious, because the solution you've described is the wrong one.
Blah, blah, blah. > | There doesn't need to be a debate. This whole proposal doesn't care > | about portage compatibility whatsoever and it's exactly this style of > | thinking that slows down portage development (which everybody loves > | to complain about so much). > > Sure it does. It cares about the way Portage is currently, and it cares > about any reasonable future Portage changes. Bullshit. > | As I said already, there will immediately be a bug asking for overlay > | support. Portage already supports multiple in a form whether anybody > | likes it or not. How they are supported and how they will change > | should be of no concern to the glep. What should be of concern is > | establishing a robust API between the readers and portage such that > | future changes won't cause breakage. > > Ok, give me a list of every single future enhancement to Portage and > I'll make sure the GLEP will be compatible with them. Without a list of future features, you think the best way to go must be the least agile? As Zac said, all that matters to keep full compatibility on the side of the readers is to add a level of indirection. All your reasoning above falls apart in the face of that simple *logical* request. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
