| 1 |
On 03/29/2014 09:26 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Anthony G. Basile: |
| 6 |
>> On 03/27/2014 09:40 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Hi everyone, |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> The council will be meeing on April 8, 2014 at 1900 UTC. Please |
| 10 |
>>> bring forward any agenda items you would like discussed. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> --Tony |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> Okay I'd like to add an agenda item. A policy inspired by bug |
| 15 |
>> #506034. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Motion: "Significant changes to virtuals are to be discussed (via |
| 18 |
>> mailing list or bugzilla) with all the maintainers and/or herds |
| 19 |
>> which maintain packages those virtuals depend on." |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Discussion: "Like eclasses, changes to virtuals can affect all the |
| 22 |
>> packages which depend on them. Changing existing virtuals, |
| 23 |
>> removing virtuals or adding new ones affect the packages they |
| 24 |
>> depend on. When such a change is proposed, all maintainers |
| 25 |
>> affected need to be included in the discussion." |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> Sounds like any other reverse-dep. If people don't discuss non-trivial |
| 28 |
> changes (to whatever part of gentoo), then that needs to be fixed, not |
| 29 |
> policies introduced for every single situation that arises. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
True, I did think of that, but we do have a policy for eclasses. With |
| 32 |
deeper uses of virtuals, it does not hurt to make the reverse-dep issue |
| 33 |
explicit. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 37 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 38 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 39 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 40 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives