From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LgE3u-0004Qu-87 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:08:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4B97E060D; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A87E060D for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.116] (ip72-220-190-13.sd.sd.cox.net [72.220.190.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2544964262 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49B37D05.50206@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:08:37 -0800 From: Josh Saddler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090102) 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] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3 References: <1236498557.6854.51.camel@neuromancer> In-Reply-To: <1236498557.6854.51.camel@neuromancer> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7B1B48F785A25520EDFC9A06" X-Archives-Salt: 291fc386-c362-4dfd-b0c5-5fc942060ade X-Archives-Hash: 3915c0ba2761fe6afca34bff977ad02a This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7B1B48F785A25520EDFC9A06 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tiziano M=C3=BCller wrote: > Hi everyone >=20 > With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new= > problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you > depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example). >=20 > So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct > improvements: >=20 > http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=3DpPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ Is there a reason why we should ram through a new EAPI for something that *looks* like another "Paludis supports this so let's make it a Portage standard" proposal? Is there some kind of time deadline here that you all want? Also, why the bannination of || ( foo? (.).) -- how is it error prone, exactly. --------------enig7B1B48F785A25520EDFC9A06 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) iEYEARECAAYFAkmzfQcACgkQxPWMzpKk6kNV4ACff7VJAGuBCeE0nLPURY3ICByv lRMAn0S7VxOWpK6rnI8ptojEs0MnMT5m =lPzA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7B1B48F785A25520EDFC9A06--