| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:05:05PM +0200, Lars Wendler wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:08:30 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >On 8/23/16 8:03 PM, Lars Wendler wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> I have some kind of interest for these packages: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >Lars, maybe once we get some names we should get a meeting of |
| 8 |
> >base-system together and coordinate our efforts. In particular, I |
| 9 |
> >mostly have interest in those packages that make up @system for the |
| 10 |
> >stages I build. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Guys, I'd like to take the opportunity to "revive" the #gentoo-base IRC |
| 14 |
> channel for coordination between base-system developers. |
| 15 |
> Perhaps "revive" is not the appropriate word considering that the |
| 16 |
> channel never stopped to exist but rather became extinct. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Opinions? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Sure, I'm fine with using it; I'm there anyway. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Furthermore what about the devs currently being listed in base-system |
| 23 |
> team but stopped taking care of the team's packages for years? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I would say contact them individually and ask them if they want to stay |
| 26 |
on the team. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Oh, and to all new team members: |
| 29 |
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so |
| 30 |
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This was always a huge mistery that never really made sense. |
| 33 |
Once the pm is upgraded on a system to eapi 6, I don't see the reason to |
| 34 |
hold back any base system packages to older eapis, especially once eapi |
| 35 |
6 has been stable for a year. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
William |
Archives