Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Scope of EAPI 3
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:34:29
Message-Id: 19242.2343.858545.187333@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Scope of EAPI 3 by Zac Medico
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Zac Medico wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Unfortunately, Zac is doing otherwise, and experience shows that >> what Zac does ends up being the final decision. You'll need to >> either convince him to revert the other things he's put in EAPI 3 >> (which I think is just unpack changes, so far), or get the Council >> to make him do so, or persuade the Council to change their minds on >> what's in 3.
We don't need to do anything of the above. We abide by the council's decision, because the council defines what goes into an EAPI and what not. In any case, since .xz support will be in EAPI 4, it would be a trivial change to move it to EAPI 3.
> The council doesn't have to "make" me do anything. The final EAPI 3 > will have exactly what the council wants and nothing more. I added > xz unpack in EAPI 3_pre2 because I just assumed that everyone would > agree on it. If the council wants to exclude xz unpack in the final > EAPI 3, that's okay and I'll do as the council wishes.
Thank you for the clarification. I guess it's an one-line change in Portage to include or not include xz in EAPI 3? Ulrich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Scope of EAPI 3 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>