1 |
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Fernando J. Pereda <ferdy@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
4 |
>> At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package |
5 |
>> managers have implemented. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I'm not sure this intersection isn't empty :/ |
8 |
|
9 |
How about we define this as EAPI=0? =) |
10 |
|
11 |
Jokes aside, I agree with you. Features that all three package |
12 |
managers have already implemented (release or beta) are quite |
13 |
uninteresting. However, this will make for a more sane discussion, and |
14 |
will _actually_ result in an EAPI=2 getting approved, say, in the next |
15 |
Council meeting. |
16 |
|
17 |
I say this is better than a feature-complete EAPI=2 that stays on hold |
18 |
for a year because we can't collectively decide on it, results in |
19 |
PM-specific overlays, loud bitching about how nothing ever gets done, |
20 |
and results in overall wastage of energy. |
21 |
|
22 |
> |
23 |
> We might, however, only discuss features that all 3 package managers can |
24 |
> implement easily. |
25 |
|
26 |
I say this should be done in the context of EAPI=3 once we all agree |
27 |
on what EAPI=2 should contain (let's take it slow ;) |
28 |
|
29 |
If we start discussing EAPI=3 *now*, we _might_ get it out 6 months later[1] ;p |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
1. Sorry, that's how open source usually works :) |
34 |
-- |
35 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
36 |
-- |
37 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |