On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:49:18 +0530 "Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This might be the clean way to do it, but the unfortunate truth is > that new EAPIs seem to be becoming "standard" pretty darn slowly, and > counting on one to implement a feature that is definitely very useful > for QA seems to be miring ourselves in unnecessary bureaucracy. > > Also, this does not have to cause breakage if done incrementally, so > the net loss is nil, and the net gain is getting a useful feature in a > relatively short, deterministic period of time rather than otherwise.
Why don't you ask the Portage people to implement what you're after as EAPI 2 next week? EAPI in no way slows down progress -- quite the opposite, since it allows changes to go through, safely, straight away. What slows down progress is that the Portage people don't care enough to implement most things, no matter how trivial and useful they are. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
