From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KpSaS-0002vK-ST for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:56:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A2550E01C3; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7645EE01C3 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (xray.science.oregonstate.edu [128.193.220.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FC1645EE for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:56:08 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI change: Call ebuild functions from trusted working directory Message-ID: <20081013185608.GD23706@comet> References: <200810092103.33472.rbu@gentoo.org> <20081013174221.GB23706@comet> <200810132020.49378.wk@mailstation.de> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZJcv+A0YCCLh2VIg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810132020.49378.wk@mailstation.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: 2d8d7d1b-5a3e-4e3e-a856-3660bac5979a X-Archives-Hash: e9b8eba776456b073d49feb6206838b9 --ZJcv+A0YCCLh2VIg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20:20 Mon 13 Oct , Wulf C. Krueger wrote: > On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Since EAPI=3D0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote=20 > > either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst > > package-manager developers and PMS editors. >=20 > So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the tree. EAPI-0= =20 > isn't "actually approved yet", though, so it must not be used in the tree= ,=20 > right? ;-) EAPI=3D0 was grandfathered in, it's unlike any new set of features. > And since EAPI-1 builds upon EAPI-0, that's not acceptable in the tree=20 > either. >=20 > (And, btw, the former council decided there wouldn't be any new EAPIs=20 > before EAPI-0 wasn't approved.) I think that was done under the assumption that EAPI=3D0 would actually be= =20 finished sometime soon. It's now been 8 months since that discussion. I=20 disagree with halting forward progress on something directly relevant to=20 all ebuild developers (important future ebuild features) to specify=20 existing behavior. I think specifications are useful but are not a=20 blocker. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --ZJcv+A0YCCLh2VIg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkjzmcgACgkQXVaO67S1rtt+/gCcDyRlIr7EVDNlkK9WAaEdUgfZ 2p8AnjXBTLujfxwMk8iab9/5LVA/a+aO =TyUv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZJcv+A0YCCLh2VIg--