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 4617C138010 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB49921C002 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944B0E0462 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:41:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (33.Red-2-137-211.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.211.33]) (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 75B7433C4F0 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:41:35 +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: <20121005062851.GI912@gentoo.org> References: <20120925092414.GL37574@gentoo.org> <1348601570.3603.4.camel@belkin4> <20121002113020.GZ37574@gentoo.org> <1349284689.2200.50.camel@belkin4> <1349375561.2200.57.camel@belkin4> <20121005062851.GI912@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-TD4oLYESZ0B8y7eNNPsB" Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:41:30 +0200 Message-ID: <1349419290.2200.68.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: 157c4eff-46de-4806-b5b4-a22496632d35 X-Archives-Hash: 8d6a5a8c917e7cb44a2e84e6cca271a9 --=-TD4oLYESZ0B8y7eNNPsB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El vie, 05-10-2012 a las 08:28 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribi=C3=B3: > On 04-10-2012 20:32:41 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > And what about current usage in the tree with current eapis? Regardin= g > > > IUSE_FLATTENED I have no problem with it, but will need to talk with > > > portage team also as they have the current implementation > >=20 > > And then, I think council should clarify what to do with current usages > > in the tree with eapi0-4 >=20 > Why should the Council clarify that? >=20 Who should be then? This has been already talked in gentoo-dev and we still don't know what to do with current ebuild/eclasses already relying on them, and reverting them to some other solution would later need us to re-migrate them to current one when it's specified in next EAPI. This is all explained in original message I send, the problem is that there is a total lack of knowledge about how to proceed and what to do and, then, I think that Council should decide it. > (Not that we're unwilling, but I don't see why Council should be the > initiator here.) >=20 >=20 --=-TD4oLYESZ0B8y7eNNPsB 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) iEYEABECAAYFAlBugRoACgkQCaWpQKGI+9Tg6QCeOlOs25r/rwJG0Uw3N9HQGctm Uh0AnjLBRACXpL2K06GBbbfEjA5AiqTR =jzgv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-TD4oLYESZ0B8y7eNNPsB--