Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:38:14
Message-Id: CAATnKFCXHXcRD9dquP7L97_upTGD6VzBktW5XV=+Cv7MTvSGeA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash by Mike Gilbert
1 On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
2 >> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
3 >> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.)
4 >> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not
5 >> allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different issue
6 >> ;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why it was
7 >> turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist.
8 >
9 > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
10 > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100823.txt
11 >
12
13 Well that was insightful. As suspected,, there was a lot of people
14 saying "Yeaahh, I don't like it", and concluding there were problems
15 with it, but the actual technical issues still haven't been presented
16 to us.
17
18 While they're still batting for the alternative solutions, which there
19 are known potential issues with.
20
21 Or did I read it selectively?
22
23 Can somebody present a real ( or even theoretical ) problem that could
24 arise from having the EAPI in the filename that isn't some abstract
25 hand-waving?
26
27 Not trying to be a troll here, but really, I still haven't seen any.
28
29
30 --
31 Kent
32
33 perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
34 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@×××××.com>