Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:07:29 -0500 > Jim Ramsay <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I think > > things are very nicely documented in PMS and the devmanual, which > > are where all EAPI changes should be documented in the future, > > regardless if you specify the EAPI in the file, the extension, or > > both. > > They only ended up nicely documented after people moaned a lot that > they were having a hard time keeping track of EAPIs...
You can't possibly be suggesting that everyone will be able to keep an ever-increasing number of feature sets in his or her mind, or that changing from a two-level to a one-level EAPI definition will remove the need for documentation going forward, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. > > Two levels really just means that any fancy tables will have to have > > one extra row (or perhaps a series of fancy tables) and any > > summaries will have to have an extra section added whenever a new > > filename extension becomes necessary. > > It'll mean people will carry on having to use the tables, and won't > start remembering things as time goes on. See comment above. The need for documentation will only increase going forward as new and varied EAPI definitions are created. > > If I understand the '.eapi3.eb' to which you make passing reference, > > this is just a fancy hand-wavy way to say "Look, the true .eb > > extension won't ever change, just the .eapi3 part which isn't > > technically the extension..." which isn't a compromise at all - It's > > an attempt to (cleverly?) obfuscate where in the filename the EAPI > > is stored. > > Yup. And yet there're people who are perfectly happy with .eapi3.eb > who hate GLEP 55. That should tell you all you need to know about > what's going on here... Seriously? That's scary. But hey, if that's actually going to get more people behind this, let's do it instead. -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm/vim)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
