Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:17:28
Message-Id: 4AAC39FB.2000808@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:56:26 +0000 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" > <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: >> it isn't a "mistaken impression". Both Joshua and me think there >> are alternatives and that the choice to put profiles/* under EAPI >> was unfortunate and should be reviewed. > > Why were those alternatives never expressed? Why were your > objections not raised at the time, and why have you never explained > what you think is wrong with it or what you think a better option > would be? >
Because at the time we didn't thought about them, didn't had time to follow the infinite discussions about EAPI, just plain didn't cared about it or some other reason. That's why we would like the council to discuss about alternatives.
>> It's also my opinion that what the council approved was the use >> of a EAPI file under each profile to mark the type of atoms that >> can be used in the profile files (slots, etc). > > What the council agreed upon is not a matter of opinion. The > council agreed to introduce EAPI control to profiles/. This was in > no way limited to "the types of atoms that can be used", and the > wording and design were very deliberately constructed *not* to > limit the changes to those kinds of things. >
I'd have to check the exact wording as I never followed EAPI discussions that closely - you have. However, I'm pretty sure that everything I saw leading up to the discussion addressed the concern of using new atom syntaxes in files under profiles (in particular package.mask/package.keywords/package.use files) and I do recall the discussion about profiles/ itself having to be restricted to EAPI-0 which meant that we couldn't use newer syntax (in particular slots) for the global package.mask. I don't recall any discussion regarding other use of EAPI in profiles - at that time. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqsOfsACgkQcAWygvVEyAKxJACeJSVu/aoKr5EER7lpubWYM82C kgQAn2hX2yI79cHwpnDV1z6f3lEP3EDT =JlzE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----