| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:35:17PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Just nudging y'all to see if there is any complaints w/ slipping a |
| 5 |
> > few riders in w/ eapi3 (aka prefix). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > 1) punting AA |
| 8 |
> > 2) punting KV and it's friends |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> We voted in the last council meeting that we won't put any additional |
| 11 |
> features into EAPI 3. So I think that you need good arguments if you |
| 12 |
> want us to revise that decision. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's not addition of a feature... it's removal, thus its exempt- the |
| 15 |
wording was "no additional features"... right? right? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
My shitty joke aside, it's zero cost, zero impact for any real world |
| 18 |
ebuilds (vapier already said he'd punt the involved ebuilds). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The reason KV/friends needs to die is that they're basically |
| 21 |
misleading- majority of kernel aware bits involve /usr/src/linux, only |
| 22 |
ebuild that seems to need awareness of uname is glibc for nptl and I |
| 23 |
suspect there are other, better ways (as vapier already said, those |
| 24 |
ebuilds break down under cross compilation). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That said, ignoring KV is viable imo. Punting AA, no cost- it's a |
| 27 |
worthless var. One less var for new devs to trip on, basically. It's |
| 28 |
not blatantly hurting anything right now so it could survive. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Personally I'd rather not see it's existance continue because we're |
| 31 |
adhering to the words of the council rather then their intent. |
| 32 |
Specifically, I presume their intent was to knock this eapi out as |
| 33 |
quickly as possible- punting AA/KV won't affect that timeline (it's 5 |
| 34 |
minutes worth of implementation time, and 5 of spec time). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> 4) Support for unpacking .xz files |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> It's an extension, therefore backwards compatible, and zmedico has |
| 40 |
> already included it in Portage (EAPI=3_pre2 has it). |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Should we have a vote per e-mail about the above (1, 2, and 4)? |
| 43 |
> I think we should finalise the EAPI 3 feature list now and don't |
| 44 |
> reiterate it at the next council meeting. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
No argument from me on adding this. It's simple and quick, more |
| 47 |
importantly it's beneficial to devs. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Consider that my +1 as someone who will actually have to implement the |
| 50 |
support... |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
One additional thought is mtime vdb touching. I'd be tempted to try |
| 53 |
pushing that one in, specifically requiring implementations that |
| 54 |
support eapi3 to do this simple touch namely. It's a bit hackish, but |
| 55 |
is a nice way to nudge PMs to get off their ass and be compliant. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Unfortunately that's probably not going to fly since council still |
| 58 |
hasn't commented. If y'all are open to it, I'd be willing to do the |
| 59 |
legwork to get it in- if preferred to defer, I understand. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
~harring |
Archives