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 1KpS3T-0000On-MK for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:22:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF97EE02A6; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blob.mailstation.de (news.mailstation.de [87.139.47.139]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89397E02A6 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from janus.localnet (janus.mailstation.de [192.168.168.10]) by blob.mailstation.de (8.14.2/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m9DIKk4m020766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:20:50 +0200 From: "Wulf C. Krueger" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI change: Call ebuild functions from trusted working directory Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:20:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.10.90 (Linux/2.6.26-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.1.68; x86_64; ; ) References: <200810092103.33472.rbu@gentoo.org> <20081013174221.GB23706@comet> In-Reply-To: <20081013174221.GB23706@comet> 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; boundary="nextPart1573726.3ZHaVqIEF1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200810132020.49378.wk@mailstation.de> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (blob.mailstation.de [192.168.168.30]); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:20:50 +0200 (CEST) X-mailstation-de-MailScanner-Information: Scanned using: F-Prot, ClamAv, Bitdefender X-MailScanner-ID: m9DIKk4m020766 X-mailstation-de-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-mailstation-de-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.24, required 5, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44, HTML_MESSAGE 0.20) X-mailstation-de-MailScanner-From: wk@mailstation.de X-mailstation-de-MailScanner-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 03631254-429f-47b2-bd73-83ba54323196 X-Archives-Hash: 75cafee2deb19b90e23af5cbc72f2f63 --nextPart1573726.3ZHaVqIEF1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary-00=_6F58Ioh1I+KUgyg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --Boundary-00=_6F58Ioh1I+KUgyg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. 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? ;-) And since EAPI-1 builds upon EAPI-0, that's not acceptable in the tree=20 either. (And, btw, the former council decided there wouldn't be any new EAPIs=20 before EAPI-0 wasn't approved.) While I agree with your intention of letting people decide upon the stuff=20 they have to work with mostly on their own and with each other, I think=20 your argument, Donnie, is rather "interesting". :-) Best regards, Wulf --Boundary-00=_6F58Ioh1I+KUgyg Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote
> either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst
> package-manager developers and PMS editors.


So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the tree. EAPI-0 isn't "actually approved yet", though, so it must not be used in the tree, right? ;-)


And since EAPI-1 builds upon EAPI-0, that's not acceptable in the tree either.


(And, btw, the former council decided there wouldn't be any new EAPIs before EAPI-0 wasn't approved.)


While I agree with your intention of letting people decide upon the stuff they have to work with mostly on their own and with each other, I think your argument, Donnie, is rather "interesting". :-)


Best regards, Wulf


--Boundary-00=_6F58Ioh1I+KUgyg-- --nextPart1573726.3ZHaVqIEF1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkjzkYEACgkQnuVXRcSi+5o5gACgpne0zZSD5Wl1wbz4EmHJLMG9 ZOIAnij2iKUY9JdVFOuWcdNLL43U1bd6 =YQ7Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1573726.3ZHaVqIEF1--