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 1KtKyo-0000mh-2W for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:37:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B28E7E023E; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.goodpoint.de (tori.goodpoint.de [85.10.203.41]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6909BE023E for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: rbu) by mail.goodpoint.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3113B109F64; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:37:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Robert Buchholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI change: Call ebuild functions from trusted working directory Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:36:50 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: council@gentoo.org References: <200810092103.33472.rbu@gentoo.org> <20081013192853.4454d779@snowmobile> <200810170241.43081.rbu@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200810170241.43081.rbu@gentoo.org> 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="nextPart3154395.ZiZZa6pyCY"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200810241336.59773.rbu@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: ab27235d-9300-42c4-aa4e-22e35337751a X-Archives-Hash: 2c8080ce0821e99b9a2e87595bdbfdf7 --nextPart3154395.ZiZZa6pyCY Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 17 October 2008, Robert Buchholz wrote: > On Monday 13 October 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > It's a retroactive change to EAPI 0 that requires changes from > > package managers and has security implications... Robert isn't > > requesting that we specify and mandate existing behaviour here, so > > it's not really something that should be left up to PMS to decide > > and enforce. > > All package manager developers have implemented this change, and PMS > editors have not objected to adding it to the spec. If Ciaran is > uncomfortable with adding this change, I would like council to sign > off on it. If council will not add this to the agenda, please state > so and I hope the PMS folks can add it to the spec without a vote. > > Furthermore, what are the blockers to vote on PMS as a draft standard > for EAPI=0 ? Is there a timeframe for its ratification? Has this been discussed in the last council meeting? If not, can you please give a reply for the questions above? Robert --nextPart3154395.ZiZZa6pyCY 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) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJJAbNbAAoJECaaHo/OfoM5Zj0QAIHhbQ2hTmIzdyAQ3M1GhlYE PUKOMoC96VHKpFJGdFLKTNttFw1N4rKLa0LGYbQIQ411hZ5bsSC+NxX7eXEgB63c f5hxRYcX8Fzfy6/VnLsm7wHSFXihADsr+kOawfpR9MXeiGc/8mnp7Jv8dUBSfCE8 nw1RGmFHbSaV4jzocel06lFDL5UwOXHZrQnFzVD9TPahq2cYIncUT6FHVS+wEwiN e5yi82Sh9yOkRPOCSI2YBxJ4ttKv/2jBWjErYV6nUt9T/hgdxUb+KJvHJbIlO2Y8 luilyBdcNrDMQ/SGPlH8D+fwoMGBv96w+zR9RhIQpF9o3Y0hpZJiIJqybMYmRznd 5ugQqwHQ/Sbj5ifHDWw9s/g5uqbvOP/dHTDgILZCapDt6530n9wf7iRRrPpt0GxM fhEvA3L3jLpn2gLgBbQJClzh4NZ8cgwNBm2gAGnK1Ni9JEAN6JWduDRcTT0t62SU PTNrQq2IvB40sJLRwuDlEzc24i3CYuINRHDiv9bIiw7LUYzNMYrQ4Mo9Hb+ys8Vh EkL8n8KeCGarMC3W0+N0FipZi0NwMjIYARt1qOJFF391ExaEixwRzrfImafCPMWp gR3AHWtjbAHY1/t5fb6/oyS/0lMiHuMwsPObaFB9aHsk4A44Bvn46wJM2r8IRnU0 IGa8UqiIzX1eXeJrrKWF =4Fb6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3154395.ZiZZa6pyCY--