[gentoo-dev] Scratching of GLEP22

[gentoo-dev] Scratching of GLEP22

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 879 bytes --]

Hi all,

In the last days on gentoo-alt we discussed about the need for a 
reorganization of keywords for Gentoo/ALT projects, basically what is being 
treated by GLEP22 currently.

And it was quite unanimous that GLEP22 solution is not adapt. Having a 4-part 
keyword is not going to help anything. The new ${ELIBC} ${KERNEL} and 
${USERLAND} supersedes that; also we're going to make them automatically 
loaded from $CHOST/$CBUILD. The new keywords are being simplified to a simple 
2-part keywords like they are used now (x86-fbsd ppc-macos ...).

For this reason I'd like to ask the retirement by scratch of GLEP22.. hope 
you'll let me do that without having to write a GLEP that removes a GLEP 
(it's recursive...)

Thanks,
-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Scratching of GLEP22

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 00:03 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> For this reason I'd like to ask the retirement by scratch of GLEP22.. hope 
> you'll let me do that without having to write a GLEP that removes a GLEP 
> (it's recursive...)

Wouldn't it make more sense to get with the GLEP authors and propose a
revision of the GLEP, since the concept is still the same "Gentoo ALT
KEYWORDS", to make it fit better with the current situation?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Scratching of GLEP22

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]

On Friday 07 October 2005 14:25, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to get with the GLEP authors and propose a
> revision of the GLEP, since the concept is still the same "Gentoo ALT
> KEYWORDS", to make it fit better with the current situation?
Problem is that this would mean replace it with another GLEP then.... because 
it changes basically everything.

I would have liked replies from someone else (maybe the GLEP editor?).

Also because right now we're not following that scheme anyway right now...

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Scratching of GLEP22

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1049 bytes --]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [Thu Oct 13 2005, 01:37:32PM CDT]
> Problem is that this would mean replace it with another GLEP then....
> because it changes basically everything.

I would rather it be replaced by another GLEP, personally.  Just yanking
it isn't sufficient, since it doesn't solve the problem of what to call
the profile for a freebsd-based system that uses a gnu userland on x86.
Or is the claim that no such name would be needed?  The original e-mail
suggesting yanking the GLEP wasn't really sufficiently for me to
understand exactly how the replacement would work.

> Also because right now we're not following that scheme anyway right now...

Which is fine, of course, since nothing is in the tree yet, but there
will be real complaints if this stuff makes it into the tree w/o
following that GLEP (or a new GLEP if it's approved).

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]