Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > On čtvrtek 08 Říjen 2009, 23:34:10 Petteri Räty wrote: >> Even this is wrong because: > Hi > ... >> betelge...@pena ~ $ portageq metadata / ebuild sys-libs/glibc-2.2.5-r10 >> IUSE nls >> >> For most packages old versions are not kept around so just doing >>> =cat/foo-X.Y[use] is fine and EAPI 3 is not needed. I haven't come >> across a case that couldn't be done with EAPI 2 yet. Granted the atoms >> can be a bit cleaner with EAPI 3 but considering how much zmedico slacks >> in implementing it, it's best to do migrating now with EAPI 2 than EAPI >> 3 in the far future. > This is not exactly nice of you. And taking in account that you are actualy > the council member it makes me feel not entirely happy. > If we just simply take look onto this: > http://cia.vc/stats/author/zmedico/ > we can count that Zac commit something into portage every 3 hours. It does > not > look entirely like slacking... > So you are basicaly proposing that maintaining the current codebase and > improving what we already have is less important than providing new features, > that is also not good. >
I am not suggesting that the work Zac does is worthless. I am saying that implementing EAPI 3 is not a colossal amount of work and if it was a priority to him it would have already been implemented. If he feels offended by my original comment, I have no problem apologizing to him. Not having EAPI 3 implemented in general is not his fault as many of us have the needed skills to start helping on the Portage code base. The reality just is that he is the most likely person to implement it and as such a very important factor on when it happens. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
