Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:18:45 -0500 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
wrote:
> On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Why is PMS considered so important that it might have a deadline
> > imposed upon it by the Council?
>
> why is an EAPI spec considered important ?  it should be plainly
> obvious why something like an EAPI standard matters so much to Gentoo

I'd like it spelt out please.

> > As far as I'm aware, nothing like this has been done before.
>
> so ?  letting projects slide in the past is no justification to let
> projects in the future slide

So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP
23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing and
things that users really care about? Is PMS really more important than
any of these?

> > Now, if there's a good reason for the Council imposing a deadline,
> > there's a pretty decent chance that said deadline will be met. If
> > the Council can justify why it needs PMS done in a hurry, PMS can
> > end up being ready within a very short timeframe. If the Council
> > can't justify the deadline, it will end up being done within a not
> > so short timeframe, since all the PMS authors are working upon
> > several things and won't make PMS top priority without good reason.
>
> the portage people have things marked for EAPI=1 which are sitting
> indefinitely (some features which for sure i want to use myself), but
> we cant really tag EAPI=0 final until we have a spec now can we ?

Sure you can. It's easy to say "ebuilds that need to rely upon features
x, y and z must use EAPI=1, and for everything else continue as has
been done in the past until someone says otherwise".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                                 : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/