| 1 |
In its November meeting [1], the council has unanimously expressed |
| 2 |
support for this proposal [2]. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
However, there is need for additional discussion. From the council |
| 5 |
meeting log I could extract the following open questions: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
1. What are the implications for non-prefix devs and users? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
2. Should the Prefix team be allowed to do the necessary changes to |
| 10 |
ebuilds themselves, or should it be done by the respective |
| 11 |
maintainers? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
3. Are there any backwards compatibility or upgrade path issues for |
| 14 |
eclasses that must still accept EAPI 0 (where the new ED, EROOT, |
| 15 |
and EPREFIX variables are not defined)? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
4. EAPI numbering: Would this simply be added as an additional |
| 18 |
feature to EAPI 3? Or should we have an intermediate EAPI slot, |
| 19 |
e.g. 2.1 or 3 (and current EAPI 3 renamed to 4 in the latter |
| 20 |
case)? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
5. Who is going to write the exact specification (PMS patch) for |
| 23 |
this EAPI feature? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
6. (Any question that I've missed?) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Let's start the discussion now, in order to work out these details |
| 28 |
before the next council meeting (December 7th). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ulrich |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
[1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt> |
| 33 |
(topic was discussed from 21:32 to 22:11 in the log's timezone) |
| 34 |
[2] <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2a62689c71f95e4de5699a330b8b5524.xml> |
Archives