On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach consensus > about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get people used to > it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and 6-dependencies, > where the former will keep the old style and the latter use > DEPENDENCIES. With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy. > After some time has passed, it could be decided to kill the less > useful one, say in EAPI 8, and get only one 'latest' EAPI again. This > decision doesn't need to be left only to the council, but since it > affects everyone it could be a vote from all the dev community. Why the dev community only? We have many active contributors who aren't devs and who work hard with ebuilds. It's *their* time which will be wasted on rewriting dependencies into new form, not yours. > There is also the possibility that a consensus will never be reached > and that the two styles will have to live forever, but after all, the > EAPI concept is made for this. I believe the correct concept is 'fork'. And that's what Exherbo did. > Given this possibility, a debate 'I perfer *DEPEND' vs 'DEPENDENCIES > are more flexible' doesn't make much sense now. What should be > discussed is the concept itself. > > For example, what is the HDEPEND equivalent for DEPENDENCIES ? exherbo > documentation doesn't seem to mention an equivalent label. But Ciaran has just said that this isn't about the labels! It's about a philosophy in life. Seriously saying, this isn't about equivalent types. We can choose any labels we like. It's all about the form in which we will do it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
