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 1LbgV6-0007VJ-8x for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:30:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B4A8E04E1; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp03.tky.fi (smtp03.tky.fi [82.130.63.73]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1AECE04E1 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.130.46.209] ([82.130.46.209]) by smtp03.tky.fi (SMSSMTP 4.1.9.35) with SMTP id M2009022321295600586 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:29:56 +0200 Message-ID: <49A2F93C.7060308@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:30:04 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fi; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090111 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A2C40D.3060601@gentoo.org> <20090223155320.4b9f16fd@snowcone> <20090223171316.5d8f94d0@gentoo.org> <20090223161956.189ab5ea@snowcone> <20090223174827.7a7906ff@gentoo.org> <20090223170103.14429f5a@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090223170103.14429f5a@snowcone> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://users.tkk.fi/~praty/public.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1567E74C69DDF42FF7631584" X-Archives-Salt: 339eee23-0460-4b8b-98b1-3299bfe1b6ec X-Archives-Hash: 79e1199568f1de67f2f71f50f6baaa35 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig1567E74C69DDF42FF7631584 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:48:27 +0100 > Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> ...and then we have to do the whole thing again every time something >>> new crops up. >> Please give an example because I fail to see how. >=20 > New version suffix rules. New bash versions. New package naming rules. > Partially composable EAPIs. Tree-provided internals. Consistent variabl= e > namespacing. Metadata via function calls. >=20 >>> EAPI was supposed to solve this, and profile eapi and >>> GLEP 55 finish the job. Repeatedly going back and saying "oh, we >>> have to wait another year or more again" is unacceptable. >> Had we found a compromise at the beginning of glep55, that extra year >> would be over by now... >=20 > And we'd be starting on the next batch of "oh, we need to wait another > year". Had GLEP 55's necessity been accepted a year ago, we'd have a > whole bunch of requested features implemented by now. >=20 I doubt Portage would have gained new features any faster. Regards, Petteri --------------enig1567E74C69DDF42FF7631584 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmi+UAACgkQcxLzpIGCsLRJrQCfYJcMHpAiLSTIAq3kMXZtYePe oFoAniWxea/WrCHzRK1DN37U/MWpnMyF =4II6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig1567E74C69DDF42FF7631584--