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 1Lc5eQ-0001lB-C4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:21:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D257AE049A; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:21:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp03.tky.fi (smtp03.tky.fi [82.130.63.73]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 860ADE049A for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:21:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.130.46.209] ([82.130.46.209]) by smtp03.tky.fi (SMSSMTP 4.1.9.35) with SMTP id M2009022500211215121 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:12 +0200 Message-ID: <49A472E3.1010204@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:23 +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: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives 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="------------enigF50543ED98960D3EE5B70416" X-Archives-Salt: fad5cf35-cc15-4053-9c58-da8266350081 X-Archives-Hash: 2e41942be33d8595cf7152aa91417fbe This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF50543ED98960D3EE5B70416 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. Everyone is only allowed to post a single reply to this thread in order to make it easy to read through. The existing thread should be used for actual discussion about the GLEP and the alternatives. This should be a useful experiment to see if we can control ourselves :) My notes so far: 1) Status quo - does not allow changing inherit - bash version in global scope - global scope in general is quite locked down 2) EAPI in file extension - Allows changing global scope and the internal format of the ebuild a) .ebuild- - ignored by current Portage b) ..ebuild - current Portage does not work with this c) .. - ignored by current Portage 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild - Allows changing global scope - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust the value in the cache - Does not allow changing versioning rules unless version becomes a normal metadata variable * Needs more accesses to cache as now you don't have to load older versions if the latest is not masked a) b) new subdirectory like ebuilds/ - we could drop extension all together so don't have to argue about it any more - more directory reads to get the list of ebuilds in a repository c) .ebuild in current directory - needs one year wait Regards, Petteri --------------enigF50543ED98960D3EE5B70416 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmkcukACgkQcxLzpIGCsLQx9QCfTxu40IeZ03ZL09h+a3R3NnIK GRMAn3wiXxb3mnhaxDE39MMBK2NNB21e =RJG6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF50543ED98960D3EE5B70416--