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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-34515-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Lc02B-0000S8-Uh
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:21:28 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E7D2BE03F3;
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:21:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-gx0-f175.google.com (mail-gx0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BACE03F3
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:21:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gxk23 with SMTP id 23so7601761gxk.10
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.142.156.2 with SMTP id d2mr2608991wfe.64.1235492486017; Tue,
24 Feb 2009 08:21:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <49A41D3F.4010706@gentoo.org>
References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost>
<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>
<efeb8d230902230228s1e9f1f06ja5e1e90f5f13d005@mail.gmail.com>
<49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A41D3F.4010706@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:25 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ce891b5ca115e5c6
Message-ID: <b41005390902240821x26b94465w73dbe308dfb85396@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council]
Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 09964d26-cac4-43e0-8cf3-f43c7ff5a968
X-Archives-Hash: 688f7e08d1d0ee7a43603f707b7911d3
Somewhat ironically, had everyone been less stubborn last year when
discussing this topic we could have embedded the EAPI in line X of the
ebuild in 2008 and be using it now; instead of still discussing it.
I don't expect new novel ideas out of this thread. I expect the
council to defer it again because the arguments are the same as last
time and last time they were not convincing enough. I would prefer if
the council went one way or the other so that when we are arguing
about this in 2010 we can at least say "hey we have support in
$PACKAGE_MANAGERs for EAPI on line X since May 2009 so in 3 months we
can just switch. We don't have to make the switch; I'm just saying we
should add support to hedge our bets.
Thoughts?
-A