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 1N9r1r-0003Cq-ON for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:09:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5953DE0934 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1796E078A for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.isohunt.com (b01.ext.isohunt.com [208.71.112.51]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E29A6731E for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 12089 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2009 01:35:08 -0000 Received: from tsi-static.orbis-terrarum.net (HELO grubbs.orbis-terrarum.net) (76.10.188.108) by mail.isohunt.com (qpsmtpd/0.33-dev on beta01) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:35:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 29687 invoked by uid 10000); 16 Nov 2009 01:35:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:35:07 +0000 From: "Robin H. Johnson" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27 Bump Message-ID: References: <4AFFACF9.6000905@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=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AFFACF9.6000905@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: f0866004-5adf-46fd-8143-3bdb2c8a1130 X-Archives-Hash: 7d0b4477ea1cb69643a0c26c5cbcfcab On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > Doug Goldstein wrote: > > GLEP 27 [1] seems pretty stagnant and I'm planning on giving it a bit > > of a refresh and actually implementing it. Now before I do this I'm > > not in love with the format in tree but I haven't decided on a format > > exactly in my head. So that being said, I'm sending this out looking > > for some opinions or ideas for my new GLEP. One of the obvious things > > I'll cover is all the ambiguity of the GLEP with regard to the data > > inside each of the files. > >=20 > > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html > One idea worth considering is making users just ebuilds with a > supporting eclass. While I'm hugely in favour of having consistent UID/GIDs with no conflicts over all Gentoo machines, I feel one of the reasons that the GLEP failed was that users required by ebuilds changed over ebuild versions, and the GLEP didn't seem to handle that well. Cases I've seen in the tree: - username change (slocate -> locate) - homedir change - shell change --=20 Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85