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 1OhKjt-00038d-MV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:05:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D739E07C7; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:05:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9C6E07A8 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C891B4092 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:04:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQSBDfqsZzHB for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3051B4094 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OhKjD-0006Cl-Io for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:04:43 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:04:43 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:04:43 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Reviving GLEP33 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4C569638.9000407@gentoo.org> <20100802211517.1f207d31@snowcone> <4C573EBB.3080005@gentoo.org> <20100805032702.GG12708@hrair.al.intel.com> <4C5AF34C.2010608@gentoo.org> <4C5B4CBB.8010301@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies; GIT a971f44 branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 2fd9ebbc-5bf3-4616-bc6f-2d67852a0ac6 X-Archives-Hash: dfe2be6389cf85d7cb7e4585fd02c8a2 Jeremy Olexa posted on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:43:55 -0500 as excerpted: > People will not "hate you" - if the portage with EAPI4 is in ~arch, you > can have PHP w/EAPI4 in ~arch, even on zero-day of release. Likewise > with stable tree. It does not matter when council "approves" EAPI4, it > matters when portage has the implementation and is released.. Isn't it /both/? IOW, just because portage implements it, doesn't mean=20 it's usable in-tree, if it's not part of an approved EAPI. Similarly,=20 approval before released support again doesn't mean it's allowed in-tree.= =20 Only with both is it then allowed. Leastwise, that was my read of the council decision back then. But zero-day, yes, provided it's both approved and in-portage at the same= =20 level (~arch or stable). > The caveat is with @system packages, especially bash/python/portage > itself. Again, yes. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman