On 21:00 Wed 03 Aug     , Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:25:03 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:
> 
> > Items proposed but not on the agenda:
> > 
> >  * Optional runtime dependencies [5]
> >    - What is the decision to be made? If none, it's not on the agenda
> 
> The decision is on how to proceed:
> a) do not do anything at all (i.e. either mention deps in
>    pkg_postinst(), use plain USE or whatever devs like now),
> b) introduce some kind of SDEPEND in a new EAPI [1],
> c) re-use USE flags and allow declaring some of them as runtime-only
>    (so they won't require package rebuilds and just adjust @world
>    depgraph) [2 mostly, though not necessarily using USE_EXPAND].

The council approves specific proposals, ideally including 
implementations, that have been discussed by the broader Gentoo 
community. I don't see us as a group of people who should be exclusively 
discussing something like this during a meeting instead of with the rest 
of the community on the -dev mailing list.

To me, this looks like something that would involve a GLEP.

> > If you have anything you'd like to push to the council for
> > discussion, feel free to reply to this thread.
> 
> I'd like the Council to put some point on the topic of changing eclass
> APIs heavily with EAPI bumps [3].

From the point of view of why I ran for council, this fits under the 
idea of problems related to individual people or instances rather than 
broader patterns that need to get dealt with by council policy.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com