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 8D6501381F3 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5ADC4E0C6C; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:13:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C246E0C58 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hj8so1742504wib.7 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 03:13:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=t0XJBnPJFOEE1tRMeWjx4fWujvVtrEHzZgZveqpHVo0=; b=ZTHTr7CCxqaTKyP7GqBYDIcaKCGZl2Lrn//CzoePaGrG+u1udNAca2osefx+NKwDYc NnNHTqN1yqNVLLWJo56D3jOBQmG9co6lOutsJdvn+By4LbERkk1wAxzxL/26tM95NHic T5q50qzCHCBeSWBcO+j/2Lry7xVbMAE1CYDQ5O6D5Ch9HUEwlUk8V1FUe9+6BS73ppBk kgwCV7FgeBMlF9jqU3tG17MChyvfNwqAMCp6Jti+mZQnwsX0UtAOtA4CKdtZL16PXjl9 xS+SUB8f2DwSo3fe5/3Tv3CLAV7nxLnC64SyEPaDsgl+1xV+puQIlKiudhoM4FPMSRaB Oo/w== X-Received: by 10.194.121.229 with SMTP id ln5mr3459627wjb.46.1365329630996; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 03:13:50 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: markos.chandras@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.121.136 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:13:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130407082718.3e7d961f@googlemail.com> References: <20817.55135.354752.397336@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20831.474.441795.677277@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130406154314.0d7dc7ef@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> <201304070037.28554.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20130406200511.01d4c0e9@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> <20130407082718.3e7d961f@googlemail.com> From: Markos Chandras Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 11:13:10 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BsdfjlywyHYpMA1yTGnKn8GVLjI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-04-09 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 4e9e0a36-91ae-4fc8-85fd-477466b210f6 X-Archives-Hash: c484ded32ae9e7ff715c5e13d82e6cb2 On 7 April 2013 08:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:11 -0600 > Ryan Hill wrote: >> In short: >> Toolchain packages, for better or worse, are built by eclass. We are >> not forward-porting toolchain.eclass every time someone decides there >> are too many EAPIs in the tree. Every change to that eclass breaks >> something (the trick is to break things people don't care about any >> more and hope no one notices). I don't know the ins and outs of >> glibc's eblits but I doubt they would be simple to port either. I >> also don't know much about toolchain-binutils.eclass, but it seems >> like it would be doable. > > Sounds like a good opportunity to replace toolchain.eclass with > something clean and understandable. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh I see no reason to break something that works just fine as it is. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang