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 1LcKpD-0006bq-2N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:33:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28878E074C; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:33:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.goodpoint.de (tori.goodpoint.de [85.10.203.41]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15F8E074C for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:33:24 +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 790FE10A71C; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:33:23 +0100 (CET) From: Robert Buchholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:33:12 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Petteri =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E4ty?= References: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <49A472E3.1010204@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="nextPart13584421.COftkbDG8T"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200902251533.17289.rbu@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 99e0aa8a-30a1-4fc4-a4f2-34a1f8e312aa X-Archives-Hash: 762d705a6f59eae5c03cc1fb27c34e20 --nextPart13584421.COftkbDG8T Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > Let's try something new. I would like to get opinions from as many > people as possible about GLEP 55 and alternatives listed here in > order to get some idea what the general developer pool thinks. Thanks for opening a spot to voice our opinions within reasonable limits=20 and without deadlocked discussions. To make it brief, I'd very much prefer 3c[0] for the reasons provided by=20 others before: =2D From what I can see, it provides for all requirements set out by g55. =2D There is a backwards-compatible way to implement it. =2D It does not expose any more internal metadata than current ebuilds do. =2D I see no rush to implement new EAPI features that require drastic changes enabled by 1*. =2D It provides a constant face for Gentoo, aka we're the guys and gals=20 using the ".ebuild" format. Robert [0] Although not with a fixed line limit, but with a strict way to find it, i.e. the first occurence of #?\s*EAPI=3D["']?([a-zA-Z0-9._]+)["']? = =20 or similar. --nextPart13584421.COftkbDG8T 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) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJJpVatAAoJECaaHo/OfoM5/EEP/iI+8L6wEINHvnfpnzp6reKe KaDc6MkMUs+4zkHDwfSotyuOvb56ExA7NXswflg9ZLKRSu8LFj1TZEUfj2mDZa9z vkkuByARewBwDxGk6h0dVz0AyOKOuSytJ2cPU/Of6sWL8DKelBWvqHzb7Jhzm+Ny 8Jjo2EIQcgRrIKCsSuT/rpHJanQvhc4QH3CXWLYhIrgWjhoHyIvux5VLgVFT+Cx0 RlOnm7eAH+aiFoxP11mJQI+Dhyh03hPmUS9W9hG4cS760Tu96PDDEARUTo7OhMGB NOvcBi2bsac5gxMjWpFYc43v7FrJ0ORekT3Egge5DNM4atsd4LvySiwpFWO1nFuX rJVakxAko+W7YbhA1PLDMI9RmR7mZh4zhem14gh1oXW4KRh5Zkvo+jhGzNpSR7f5 ZleE0WtQKr5rlCJpLjR2jYUG1rJFYS9tNocNlcABsDjRQ1NuqfKXckPLjJawXgL/ rYJuG/l3wY8QX+1YJEG6UhQLkxMdHRdwsBCnKzOS8ozsu7CxrUNqZygpAxSGNLtR h1uLEIvpIilv2Pkb9bH8ugKIz1jZAR4Mcn5n+m8ZgVVxFM+Uph46w1xSDehSYv75 ebLDuJpL440xZbC++Mm496OJA5lCj9EgfHGLF0XUy7bWYFJ6KkmgYmHiDYVnU3b/ /jO0Jm4Tq/5hLEV26vH7 =WfEM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart13584421.COftkbDG8T--