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 1Lc0Dh-0006aZ-Jz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:33:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 78905E0414; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:33:20 +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 5A203E03E7 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk23 with SMTP id 23so7624981gxk.10 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:33:20 -0800 (PST) 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 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.142.102.5 with SMTP id z5mr2599023wfb.334.1235493199484; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:33:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20090224162341.149c49a7@snowcone> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <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> <49A41D3F.4010706@gentoo.org> <20090224162341.149c49a7@snowcone> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:33:19 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5956271c5ab9518f Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) From: Alec Warner To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 289f4272-dbe2-4f89-9e28-5c2a177da443 X-Archives-Hash: 2cfb6154afed7847bf6f9b0e3d2af9a3 On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:21:25 -0800 > Alec Warner wrote: >> 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. > > ...and we wouldn't be able to change the version rules, and we would be > suffering a substantial performance hit. Hey I never said its a perfect solution; but I'm a fan of the 'it covers 80%'. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too; sometimes requirements get dropped. -A > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh >