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 1QqqJ3-0008Gz-AL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CA4421C3BD; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301EB21C160 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mayo-nat4.mayo.edu [129.176.197.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dberkholz) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F7361B4012 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:41:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:41:02 -0500 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting: Tuesday 9 August, 1900 UTC Message-ID: <20110809174102.GG25611@comet.mayo.edu> References: <20110803182503.GE2924@comet.ucsd.edu> <20110803210001.17556342@pomiocik.lan> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110803210001.17556342@pomiocik.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 18e77d8c5a5987bc69ed0f1ee49f0230 --+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 21:00 Wed 03 Aug , Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:25:03 -0700 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: >=20 > > Items proposed but not on the agenda: > >=20 > > * Optional runtime dependencies [5] > > - What is the decision to be made? If none, it's not on the agenda >=20 > The decision is on how to proceed: > a) do not do anything at all (i.e. either mention deps in > pkg_postinst(), use plain USE or whatever devs like now), > b) introduce some kind of SDEPEND in a new EAPI [1], > c) re-use USE flags and allow declaring some of them as runtime-only > (so they won't require package rebuilds and just adjust @world > depgraph) [2 mostly, though not necessarily using USE_EXPAND]. The council approves specific proposals, ideally including=20 implementations, that have been discussed by the broader Gentoo=20 community. I don't see us as a group of people who should be exclusively=20 discussing something like this during a meeting instead of with the rest=20 of the community on the -dev mailing list. To me, this looks like something that would involve a GLEP. > > If you have anything you'd like to push to the council for > > discussion, feel free to reply to this thread. >=20 > I'd like the Council to put some point on the topic of changing eclass > APIs heavily with EAPI bumps [3]. =46rom the point of view of why I ran for council, this fits under the=20 idea of problems related to individual people or instances rather than=20 broader patterns that need to get dealt with by council policy. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com --+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk5BcS4ACgkQXVaO67S1rtt4kgCgrjBtWJYd611M/BSH6q/Bzpxa Z84An3X1Ok7Hg4dh8+FUJxk7ZVrXI1p5 =fb7i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+1TulI7fc0PCHNy3--