On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100 Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The > idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required > standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirks > documented as required standard behaviour. Well, that'll come out in review later, I would expect. I'll be surprised if the EAPI=0 spec Ciaran et. al. are working on just gets rubber-stamped without anyone looking! This thread shows there are a number of people who know what they're talking about and will review it heavily when it is published as a draft, and the council are unlikely to approve something that doesn't have broad support. With respect to having a small relatively closed group for initial drafting - it's a sensible way to do things in the early stages (it's not the only sensible way of course). If anyone doesn't like it, there's nothing stopping them from drafting their own in a different way. Indeed, having two strong drafts would be good, for finding idiosyncrasies from different perspectives. I have to say, the few queries I've seen from Ciaran have been exactly what I would (happily) expect. Queries about whether some current portage behaviours should be classed as quirks or EAPI=0 behaviour, presumably because the answer has a large impact on the design of a package manager. A good example is the recent one about whether EAPI=0 should require that the ebuild be sourced in every phase or only once. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
