From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HcNYz-0002BQ-JM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:19:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3DFHomQ018567; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:17:50 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3DFBqmk007571 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:11:52 GMT Received: from ip6-localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006E0641D8 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:10:34 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI 1 (Was: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:11:07 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <20070401092940.1B4C26441E@smtp.gentoo.org> <20070413155032.54edddc0@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <20070413155032.54edddc0@snowflake> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1230437.m3g6DjqHnQ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200704131111.07737.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 7d567a9a-b8ce-4a9a-8e9b-2f851be044a4 X-Archives-Hash: 2a6f1792bb3bf5cbeb3afad3b7b56d72 --nextPart1230437.m3g6DjqHnQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Steve Long wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Brian Harring wrote: > > >> Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in > > >> my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks > > >> want. > > > > > > Well, EAPI 1 needs to be delivered quickly... > > > > Why exactly does EAPI=1 need to be rushed? > > Because the tree needed the functionality in question several years ago. > > > I thought the whole point of 0 was allowing a base, so that new stuff > > could be developed while guaranteeing certain behaviour. What's the > > hurry? It's not like there are systems b0rking or anything because > > EAPI=1 isn't around; > > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into a > later EAPI. this is really up to the portage team to drive -mike --nextPart1230437.m3g6DjqHnQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARh+di0FjO5/oN/WBAQI+pxAA3vcHVOM+kVBVX1TI63e4C0nfdg8zt1iq l3CsB82ZE6Q65ws14igRc5OMLA+QXDSHQ97Wn2utHqqV7mPuLfffLOeLXHs7VH2O jTnDI761ITqvt+zGXsvv+bzwf/wryBK11+gMHWqIDx4QgvSh9QTvYDhSrdQUweWw kAmtEyMvM4REI0aCWr09SCgHcXY2Fao9Nyx4Le18ixJ0NkOluFfM/HJaqdhBVu6J ioiSXVGu4tiMdB/d9l1Gc/qSm/Esu5bsccPkJbPa6OE1Se79GTAQFL9ntsUl65pY C+5fOJTSMqEZcKOmEu8RhVPp6K5aAc5tYbUdwvFBjZrW7AdYjxQ2vhUVf+BOw3r2 HmZInFxMUBS4gwi516VqhZynhhpVUTMZl7PL8hDXuJmF0JWOkSfZriF22j/gyIFo gAEQmYrmN9XM1Y3dkDUfkPBOdb0SyIhzPlqNfGikC/ArYk6lyur3sQ9fAQgsbfoF 5RIc0SxRUJRw+e64yHBKrWV/Rhvm88GDlCm4jsWagYaOWFq/jg1Bf3bJYgWAHmr1 aBfGDjyXQnwReVFeIk79U7y2mpztpDQfeoUXcaqFiOUsX1MJryyuP/K1kvORdqz0 zXglsfz+PU1TCWy/JUOwCy2GWxBiMeLxv3f0qwpqEuIxXewVUuU4D+uX4U5LDsVo ZcX/KCgJHDI= =kiln -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1230437.m3g6DjqHnQ-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list