On 16:58 Fri 13 Mar , Thomas Anderson wrote:
> EAPI-3 Proposals:
> Note: The following two proposals were discussed before it was
> realized that there was not sufficient time to discuss all of
> them. At that point a call for objections to any of the proposals
> found at  was asked for, and none were made.
Could you please explicitly list the proposals? Google Docs is a living,
Also please add a Next Action section (which I describe below). If you
cannot answer it, please ask on-list for clarification.
> Technical Issues:
Heh, I didn't realize EAPI=3 wasn't technical. =)
> - GLEP 54
> Thomas(tanderson) sent out a comparison of GLEP 54 and the liveebuild proposals.
> Among those discussing GLEP 54 there was a general consensus that
> there was nothing wrong with it as a first step to get correct
> ordering. Luca(lu_zero) commented that all he was concerned about was
> that there was not enough 'meat' to the GLEP.
> No decision yet, Doug(Cardoe) and Luca(lu_zero) intend to write a
> GLEP to handle the second part of the problem(making the revision
> available to ebuilds/package manager/users.
> - GLEP 55
> Petteri, Zac, and Ciaran were supposed to benchmark the various
> proposals and report back. Zac did not write the code for portage so
> Petteri had nothing to report on this issue. Ciaran commented that
> the solutions other than GLEP 55 had a 50% slowdown in the valid cache
> situation compared to GLEP55, but did not post the raw numbers or the
> patches used.
Could you make it explicit what the next actions are here, and who will
do them, although the portage code thing is mentioned above?
I'd like to see a Next Action section for any item that isn't totally
completed. If we can't answer it with a Who, What, and When, then we
haven't accomplished anything in a way likely to produce results.
> - Migration of KEYWORDS from ebuilds to profiles:
> Ned Ludd(solar) brought this up, but it came up in the middle of agenda
> items so was not talked about much. Some points were made that such a scheme
> would require a git conversion, but nothing was agreed upon because there
> was too little time.
Well, because it was frankly OT at the time, not brought up for the
agenda, nobody had time to plan, there was no goal for the discussion,
etc ... I wouldn't go blaming this on lack of time.
Developer, Gentoo Linux