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 1Mek1D-00084A-Dq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:24:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BA21E003C; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.trelane.net (mail.trelane.net [66.93.203.104]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BE3E003C for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41ED18661F for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:23:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at trelane.net Received: from mail.trelane.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (master.trelane.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6E+pHcCf1m4E for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8E5186627 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.16.1.99] (router.trelane.net [66.93.203.152]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9511918661F for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A8F8EDF.10308@trelane.net> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:23:27 -0400 From: Andrew D Kirch User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090708) 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: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant' References: <90b936c0908121058y5fd25cfcm67a19761b1130896@mail.gmail.com> <20090821224638.1f797d4b@snowmobile> <200908220110.33794.reavertm@poczta.fm> <200908220145.00956.rbu@gentoo.org> <4A8F41BE.4090509@allenjb.me.uk> <1250921928.26645.2.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1250921928.26645.2.camel@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 0f01adcd-394d-4f9c-a322-906df109a8c6 X-Archives-Hash: 7acfdd664c2db84b8cacbb23fa1c565f Tiziano M=C3=BCller wrote: > As you can see currently, most time is needed to implemente the feature= s > in portage. It therefore doesn't make sense to make the EAPI process > even faster. On the other hand, I think it would make sense to have a > separate group developing new EAPIs instead of the council. > > Cheers, > Tiziano I agree with what's being said here. The previous council ran into a huge road block with EAPI and GLEP's. I think that EAPI's should be moved to the Portage herd, and GLEPs assigned as necessary until final approval or dissent is given by the council. This would hopefully reduce contention with GLEP's as has happened in the past, and put EAPI's closer to the devs who will implement them. Andrew D Kirch Funtoo.org