List Archive: gentoo-project
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 21:00 Wed 03 Aug , Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:25:03 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Items proposed but not on the agenda:
> > * Optional runtime dependencies 
> > - 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 ,
> 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 .
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.
Council Member / Sr. Developer