On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 +0000 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And irrespective > of whether bug-wranglers have much to say, I'd still want them > involved, as they deal with the ebuild bugs. As such they could well > have ideas or viewpoints which would help. Even if they don't, it's > how I'd do it for any software development project- not having > testing/ QA/ bug fixers involved would leave me uneasy. bug-wranglers don't really have much to do with QA, their main job is just to assign bugs to the right people, and that doesn't have anything to do with a package manager specification (at most you could argue about the metadata.xml format, but even that is a long shot). > I don't buy the stuff about needing the so-called independent > implementation sorry. ``What people think is allowed rather than what > is?'' The spec defines what is allowed. Period. Thing is that if you only have a single implementation it's much easier for errors to slip by due to implicit assumptions. Unless you write a full compliance testsuite ... > And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting > implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that? Which implementation exactly? Portage isn't frozen, the behavioris more less constantly changing. Another issue are the things that just work by accident or only exist for legacy reasons, you don't really want those in a formal spec aimed at future developments. Also in general it's easier to extend a spec than to restrict it later on, no matter what the spec is about. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
