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 D0B5013877A for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 20:51:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2FCEE09ED; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 20:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639BBE0962 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 20:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik (apn-31-2-13-167.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl [31.2.13.167]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7071C340130; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 20:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 22:51:52 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-2?B?TWljaGGzIEfzcm55?= To: Ulrich Mueller Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 Message-ID: <20140805225152.5a8878e3@pomiocik> In-Reply-To: <21472.45325.362176.166868@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <21463.26330.847055.224071@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20140805104923.0401ad21@pomiot.lan> <21472.45325.362176.166868@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.24; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: a6e72bd1-e004-4f00-8844-74a0d3ef8be5 X-Archives-Hash: 5a39df10897c363962470a12e0166a2f Dnia 2014-08-05, o godz. 12:25:17 Ulrich Mueller napisa=B3(a): > >>>>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Micha=B3 G=F3rny wrote: >=20 > > I would additionally like to ask Council to consider a three more > > items for EAPI 6. >=20 > > Specifically: >=20 > > 1. passing additional configure options (using the usual --help > > magic): > > [...] >=20 > > 2. additional default suffixes for dohtml: bug #423245 [3]. > > [...] >=20 > > 3. build-time switching variant of || (): bug #489458 [4]. >=20 > I'd rather not add further features to EAPI 6, otherwise it'll never > be finished. I don't see items 1 and 2 as essential features. In > addition, comments on the bugs for item 1 seem to indicate that it > will break some packages. Comments indicate only that Exherbo done it the way that broke some packages. However, we already have a good way of avoiding that (--help). And since it is trivial to implement in-place in Portage, we should be able to do a tinderbox run before the meeting. > Concerning item 2, dohtml already has a -A option that allows adding > further extensions to the list. It doesn't have any option for their > removal, so I've mixed feelings about adding further extensions as > default. Me too but I want the Council to have the final say. IMHO dohtml is=20 a big mistake that most developers see as wrapper for 'insinto; doins' while instead it is a big pack of magic features. > Item 3 would be important enough to add it. OTOH, it still is in the > flow; your comment #14 was posted to the bug only today (!). There are > at least two previous examples where we have had bad experience with > such last-minute changes. I doubt it can go anywhere far from it. My comment only summarizes most of the stuff, and there's still time before the meeting. Considering the agenda, I suspect that the meeting may even need to be continued next week -- which brings us even more time. Of course, there's matter of testing it. However, I am going to work on || deps in Portage anyway. In the worst case, we can decide to drop it from final EAPI 6 set. However, I see it as more likely to be implemented than runtime USE. -- Micha=B3 G=F3rny