On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:17:32 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not > > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into > > a later EAPI. > > > Man here we go again: I spend a lot of time helping and being helped > by other gentoo users. *There has been no significant system b0rkage > for nearly a year* *QA is getting better not worse* and *the gentoo > development process works* > > You may have your issues with the gentoo dev team, but spreading this > kinda FUD is outta line imo.
You don't know what QA problems EAPI 1 will solve, do you? It's not FUD at all. > 3 months for specification of EAPI 1 after a year for EAPI 0 is not > exactly moving slowly. And there are clearly other viewpoints as to > what is needed. Personally speaking, I'd like to find out what those > are, as it's both instructive for me, and better for the distro I use. We're not talking specification. We're talking implementation time. Many of the things likely to be in EAPI 1 were needed years ago, and the tree has huge problems as a result. The simplest example is the KDE and Qt dependency hell that's come about as a result of not having slot deps. > If there really are problems with *portage* those are not your > concern: Paludis users presumably don't get that kinda b0rkage so all > you need to do is /wait/ and let the technical superiority of your > product win the argument. *Of course* Paludis users will get the same b0rkage that Portage users do, since it's using the same ebuilds. Please refrain from contributing if you don't understand the issues at hand. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
