On 11:12 Sun 08 Jun     , Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I
> have a few technical questions for you:
> 
> 1. GLEP54
> 2. GLEP55

I don't have any particular objections to these, besides the vague 
aesthetic one of having EAPI in the filename. Particularly long, weird 
EAPIs filled with special characters (to which some will reply "So don't 
do that").

It would be pretty cool to be able to sync a portage tree excluding 
ebuilds of any unsupported EAPI, though.

> 3. Most wanted changes in future EAPIs

USE deps (in portage as of $recent, so we might be able to do this soon)

Anything that's gotten to the point where people hack around it to use 
it in the tree is clearly something that should become part of an EAPI, 
a la built_with_use(). That's one kind of action that shows something is 
a feature we really need.


Some features I'd like to see in general use that may not require new 
EAPIs:

  -New eclasses and elibs (GLEP 33)
  -Clean multilib support (PM treating ABI to allow multiples of the 
   same PVR)
  -USE flag groups (GLEP 29) that don't suck like USE_EXPAND
  -Signing everything (eclasses and all)
  -GLEP 42 (news reporting) finally getting used

Other things I'd like to see:

  -A hosting site for all of our patches. This would enable better 
   collaboration with other distros and upstream.
  -More unit tests, building on the ones I posted to -dev recently.
  -A real tinderbox server doing continuous integration tests that 
   people can check at any time and that will do the blame game and 
   email people who broke something.
  -Someone to finish creandus (pioto's user creation thingy)


Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list