From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5D8138010 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F30FBE0329 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29983E006E for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 17:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (35.Red-2-136-69.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.136.69.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 010F333C898 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 17:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 09-10-2012 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20121002113020.GZ37574@gentoo.org> References: <20120925092414.GL37574@gentoo.org> <1348601570.3603.4.camel@belkin4> <20121002113020.GZ37574@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-LpHyb0YDAF9Tf6C7FMxw" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:18:09 +0200 Message-ID: <1349284689.2200.50.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 08ecb3ba-766f-4b1e-889c-ed7098032c06 X-Archives-Hash: f31095aa63ee19cbe5824ba178dd83e5 --=-LpHyb0YDAF9Tf6C7FMxw Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mar, 02-10-2012 a las 13:30 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribi=C3=B3: > Pacho, >=20 > On 25-09-2012 21:32:50 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > This is from: > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260662 > >=20 > > But corrected to remember preferred usage of in_iuse from eutils.eclass > > as remembered by mgorny in that thread: >=20 > I've considered your point, but concluded that at this moment, the > Council basically has nothing to do here. It seems obvious that it > needs something to be defined in a next EAPI, but the Council is not the > body to invent that. > Please discuss with involved people (Portage devs?) and prepare a patch > to PMS that can be used as feature for the next EAPI. Brian's > IUSE_FLATTENED might be a simple and good solution for that. >=20 > Best, > Fabian >=20 And what about current usage in the tree with current eapis? Regarding IUSE_FLATTENED I have no problem with it, but will need to talk with portage team also as they have the current implementation --=-LpHyb0YDAF9Tf6C7FMxw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlBsc1EACgkQCaWpQKGI+9TNFACfaSFd1y6ZgFFVk8vF97BVtS+c rNcAnA1wnqnF/lnWgtyix9tnNDVC5iYJ =qhHW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-LpHyb0YDAF9Tf6C7FMxw--