From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9PE2-0005vj-1w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 May 2009 19:55:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03C23E044F; Wed, 27 May 2009 19:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.140]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B947FE044F for ; Wed, 27 May 2009 19:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1M9PE0-0001dI-41 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 May 2009 19:55:44 +0000 Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:55:33 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1243428376.31661.38.camel@liasis.inforead.com> (from fmccor@gentoo.org on Wed May 27 13:46:16 2009) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.3.28 Message-Id: <1243454143.3480.1@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost01-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: de463ef8-9ea2-4e6a-8deb-d3cafcd33930 X-Archives-Hash: b18bd33bcae4c9b44eaf7d6810480ebd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.05.27 13:46, Ferris McCormick wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 20:57 +0200, Tiziano M=FCller wrote: > > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & > 4th > > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo- > council > @ > > irc.freenode.net) ! > >=20 > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote > > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo > dev > > list to see. > >=20 > > For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our > homepage: > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ > >=20 > >=20 > > Following is the preliminary meeting agenda. First we'll have to > fill > > the empty spot. After a short upgrade on EAPI-3 implementation we > will > > discuss the removal of old eclasses, followed by our old friend=20 > GLEP > 55. > > If we still have time we can dive into the topic of general EAPI > > development. > >=20 >=20 > Because Piotr recently amended GLEP55 to provide some further > clarification and justification as well as to present a few > alternatives > addressing some objections people have expressed, it seems to me that > the GLEP55 discussion should now go something like this: >=20 > 1. Approve the concept in principle (I think Piotr's examples > sufficiently show the need for something along the lines set out in > the > revised GLEP); >=20 [snip] > > Cheers, > > Tiziano > Regards, > Ferris > --=20 > Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) > Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) >=20 GLEP 55 still confuses the problem and the solution. Adding metadata to the filename is not required and is bad system=20 design practice. Its also the first step on the slippery slope to=20 adding more metadata in the future. Changing the .ebuild extension, to blind existing PMs to new format=20 ebuilds, is probably a good thing as it means we can have both=20 formats in the tree at the same time and not wait a long time (year=20 plus) for users to be on a new package manager. This allows the EAPI to be included within the ebuild where it belongs. That means the EAPI needs to be extracted before the ebuild is sourced,=20 which from the figures bandied about on the list may take marginaly=20 longer but its a price worth paying for a sound system design. Gentoo should not repeat the VHS vs Betamax war. For those who do not=20 remember, VHS was the better marketed but inferior technical solution=20 that won the standards war for domestic Video recorders.=20 The aims of GLEP 55 are good but the proposed implementaion is bad=20 practice, so GLEP 55 should be rejected in its present form. =20 - --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkodmr8ACgkQTE4/y7nJvat44gCfWz/XUkodXfh4VuEM6uPrF04/ SzcAoKJKXfKUac/AVZ3/y6ez1XzoG33+ =3DyVGU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----