1 |
Tiziano Müller wrote: |
2 |
> EAPI 3: Short discussion of the progress |
3 |
> ---------------------------------------- |
4 |
> |
5 |
> zmedico will provide an update on the progress of the implementation. Short |
6 |
> discussion of problems and implementation decisions if needed. |
7 |
|
8 |
Guess that's a rather short topic. Nothing to discuss for us. |
9 |
|
10 |
> Default ACCEPT_LICENSE |
11 |
> ---------------------- |
12 |
> Goal: A possible default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE has been proposed. Decide |
13 |
> whether that's ok. What happens to the X11 license files (one for each app)? |
14 |
|
15 |
The proposed default looks good to me. Besides that the X11 license |
16 |
stuff needs to get sorted out finally (if it hasn't been already - |
17 |
MIT?). |
18 |
|
19 |
> Bash-4 in EAPI-3 |
20 |
> ---------------- |
21 |
> Goal: A request has been made to allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI-3. Decide |
22 |
> first whether or not to open the EAPI-3 feature list at all. |
23 |
|
24 |
I'm against re-opening the feature list for EAPI-3, let's get EAPI-3 |
25 |
finally implemented and put this on the agenda for EAPI-4. I don't see |
26 |
the pressure to allow bash-4.0 stuff now. |
27 |
|
28 |
> Define EAPI development/deployment cycles |
29 |
> ----------------------------------------- |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Goal: Start discussion about EAPI development/deployment. For example: |
32 |
> Collect problems of eapi introductions in the past, like reverting |
33 |
> ebuilds to former eapis to get them stable, not waiting for the pm |
34 |
> support a certain eapi before requesting stable keywords for ebuilds |
35 |
> using the new eapi, .... Collect problems of EAPI development like |
36 |
> feature-freeze, late feature removals (due to implementation problems). |
37 |
> Eventually develop a lightweight EAPI development model. |
38 |
|
39 |
The main "problem" is that there is no deployment process for newer |
40 |
EAPIs specified right now. In the past we had something like "there must |
41 |
be two releases (stage sets) including a Portage version supporting new |
42 |
features" before people were allowed to use new features in tree. We had |
43 |
a timeframe of something about a half year between introduction of new |
44 |
features and usage of them. At least in theory. |
45 |
|
46 |
While having such a longer timeframe would make the deployment of new |
47 |
EAPIs somewhat easier (especially the special cases when newer versions |
48 |
of a package were migrated to a shiny new EAPI which isn't supported by |
49 |
a stable Portage yet and there's a need for quick versions bump due to |
50 |
security bugs) I think something inbetween that old process and the |
51 |
currently used one would be useful. For example something like: New |
52 |
EAPIs can be used in tree once a Portage version supporting that |
53 |
specific EPAI has been marked as stable plus a transition period of - |
54 |
say - 4 weeks after the Portage version has been made stable on the |
55 |
first architecture. |
56 |
|
57 |
And for EAPI development: I did dislike the google spreadsheet which has |
58 |
been used for EAPI-3 and don't think this has proved to be useful. If we |
59 |
do opt for any public collaboration development process (instead of say |
60 |
some file in $SCM) we should use a simple Wiki and be done. Tracking |
61 |
changes made to that document is a requirement from my pov. Using bugs |
62 |
for each feature and an EAPI tracker bug would be another possible way |
63 |
to organize this. |
64 |
|
65 |
Tobias |