| 1 |
On 10/14/11 5:38 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> I believe op's point is that there is no one to escalate the problem |
| 3 |
> to; certainly the council members are not going to do the work |
| 4 |
> themselves and we already have our best people on it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm aware of that. My point is that I think there are many scenarios in |
| 7 |
which EAPI-4 + python.eclass can work, especially if it's used only for |
| 8 |
few things in cases like www-client/chromium |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Because the python team takes _ages_ to do the transition that is |
| 11 |
holding back many other packages, because they've made python.eclass |
| 12 |
overly complex and now try to make it perfect, |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'd just like to get an "OK" to enable EAPI-4 for that eclass. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Please note that it's still up to dependent packages which EAPI they |
| 17 |
use. If they break python.eclass with EAPI-4 they shouldn't update to |
| 18 |
that EAPI. However, if there are packages using python.eclass that could |
| 19 |
work fine with EAPI-4, it shouldn't be blocking them for *ages* |
Archives