1 |
Am Samstag, den 22.08.2009, 01:54 +0100 schrieb AllenJB: |
2 |
> From what I've seen here, at least part of the problem here stems from |
3 |
> the fact that this feature won't be considered until EAPI-4, and that |
4 |
> means it might be a long way off yet. This, in my mind, raises the |
5 |
> question of whether the current PMS/EAPI process is too slow in certain |
6 |
> circumstances and could it be modified to speed things up when deemed |
7 |
> necessary? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Could there be room for "fast track" EAPI's to be considered on some |
10 |
> occasions - eg. in this case an EAPI-2.1 which is simply EAPI-2 with the |
11 |
> "package.* as directory in profiles" feature included? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> If this is a matter of what the council has decided, would a simple |
14 |
> solution be to have a motion for amendment / fast-track of EAPI2.1 (or |
15 |
> alternative solution) brought up and voted on by the council? |
16 |
|
17 |
As you can see currently, most time is needed to implemente the features |
18 |
in portage. It therefore doesn't make sense to make the EAPI process |
19 |
even faster. On the other hand, I think it would make sense to have a |
20 |
separate group developing new EAPIs instead of the council. |
21 |
|
22 |
Cheers, |
23 |
Tiziano |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Tiziano Müller |
27 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
28 |
Areas of responsibility: |
29 |
Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor |
30 |
E-Mail : dev-zero@g.o |
31 |
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 |