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 1N8uYu-0001FE-3Q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:43:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63B26E07A2; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D04E07A2 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.0/8.13.4) with ESMTP id nADBhRad018555 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:43:28 +0100 Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nADBhPtc004342; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:43:25 +0100 Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nADBhPAT004339; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:43:25 +0100 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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19197.18013.751396.332003@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:43:25 +0100 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Prefix: on EPREFIX, ED and EROOT inside ebuilds References: <20091018091154.GB464@gentoo.org> <200910181357.10183.scarabeus@gentoo.org> <20091018123114.GG464@gentoo.org> <20091019194459.GY464@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12 under 23.1.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller X-Archives-Salt: c3b8a305-6333-496b-ba5f-57955d76a9bc X-Archives-Hash: 1ddbbc2e39af9deb7deec5f065b6a674 In its November meeting [1], the council has unanimously expressed support for this proposal [2]. However, there is need for additional discussion. From the council meeting log I could extract the following open questions: 1. What are the implications for non-prefix devs and users? 2. Should the Prefix team be allowed to do the necessary changes to ebuilds themselves, or should it be done by the respective maintainers? 3. Are there any backwards compatibility or upgrade path issues for eclasses that must still accept EAPI 0 (where the new ED, EROOT, and EPREFIX variables are not defined)? 4. EAPI numbering: Would this simply be added as an additional feature to EAPI 3? Or should we have an intermediate EAPI slot, e.g. 2.1 or 3 (and current EAPI 3 renamed to 4 in the latter case)? 5. Who is going to write the exact specification (PMS patch) for this EAPI feature? 6. (Any question that I've missed?) Let's start the discussion now, in order to work out these details before the next council meeting (December 7th). Ulrich [1] (topic was discussed from 21:32 to 22:11 in the log's timezone) [2]