From: | Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) | ||
Date: | Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:21:28 | ||
Message-Id: | b41005390902240821x26b94465w73dbe308dfb85396@mail.gmail.com | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) by Joe Peterson |
1 | Somewhat ironically, had everyone been less stubborn last year when |
2 | discussing this topic we could have embedded the EAPI in line X of the |
3 | ebuild in 2008 and be using it now; instead of still discussing it. |
4 | |
5 | I don't expect new novel ideas out of this thread. I expect the |
6 | council to defer it again because the arguments are the same as last |
7 | time and last time they were not convincing enough. I would prefer if |
8 | the council went one way or the other so that when we are arguing |
9 | about this in 2010 we can at least say "hey we have support in |
10 | $PACKAGE_MANAGERs for EAPI on line X since May 2009 so in 3 months we |
11 | can just switch. We don't have to make the switch; I'm just saying we |
12 | should add support to hedge our bets. |
13 | |
14 | Thoughts? |
15 | |
16 | -A |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |
[gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) | Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> |