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 082F713888F for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:11:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A15721C012; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:11:43 +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 05B0421C005 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (aftr-37-201-212-74.unity-media.net [37.201.212.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8819340A66 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for Agenda Items -- Council Meeting 2015-11-08 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <562D4269.1030508@gentoo.org> <22061.21589.937200.862099@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <562DDA74.7030800@gentoo.org> From: hasufell X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <562FCC69.5030308@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:11:37 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: eb918f7d-7b6d-4057-9490-ab127b853a7a X-Archives-Hash: 65978f735158e2f61671271189e3e7da On 10/26/2015 01:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> I haven't read through the references yet, but is it also stated that >> eapply_user needs to be applied at least once in addition to being >> idempotent? >> > > It says it must be applied once. The reference in this case is just a > diff to one line, so you should probably just read it. :) > > If anybody has additional pros/cons to the idempotent proposal that > haven't already been raised I'm all ears. I was against the change > but I'm willing to go along with it based on the arguments so far. > It's still not clear to me how this is supposed to work at all. Are we expected to run eautoreconf unconditionally just in case a user will throw in a patch that alters the build system? I definitely won't do that, because autoreconf is the source for a lot of problems and build failures.