On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:32:33 -0400 Andrew D Kirch <trel...@trelane.net> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:29:12 -0700 > > Chip Parker <infowo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> If you were building a house, and the blueprints had been signed off > >> on calling for 1 meter high doors, but the builder had built in 2 > >> meter high doors, would you then go back to the builder and require > >> him to do something that makes those doors unusable for the vast > >> majority of people entering the house? > >> > > > > Package managers can implement whatever extra bells and whistles they like, > > but they still have to follow the spec. Your metaphor is flawed in that > > you're talking about a single house here. If it doesn't match the plan you > > do an as-built and file a deviation with the registrar. The situation here > > is more like if you build a hundred houses to code, and then one above code, > > and then change code to match the one house and bulldoze the rest for not > > meeting minimal requirements. You're punishing anyone who implements a > > package manager to spec if you keep changing the spec in incompatible ways. > > > Right, this is called "punishing innovation". It's a hobby of > bureaucrats everywhere. > It could also be said to be "punishing excellence". We've had a lot of > political systems > which try to implement a design which weeds out both the mediocre, and > the excellent, > leaving us with the average all have been failures. The reason why > they fail is that it is > the above average who do the heaviest lifting. No, you're still missing the point. Innovation is good. Rewarding innovation is good, which is why we change the spec in backwards-compatible ways to incorporate the best ideas every so often, through new EAPIs. What is bad is when one particular package manager innovates and we retroactively change the spec to match what it does, leaving all the PM's that operate according to what the spec previously said to do up the river. For the record, I use portage. I have always used portage. I just don't see the point of having a specification on how to write a PM that works with Gentoo if we keep changing that spec on whim. -- fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
