| 1 |
On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> - Vote on GLEP 54 |
| 4 |
> This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on |
| 5 |
> whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. |
| 6 |
> The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the |
| 7 |
> problems mentioned in GLEP 55 being solved. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Conclusion: |
| 10 |
> Conditionally approved on whether GLEP 55 is approved. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sorry if the question has already been raised (i would be surprised it |
| 14 |
was not), but... Back in january [1], it was decided that base profile |
| 15 |
(and thus package.mask) should stay in EAPI=0 syntax. So once you've |
| 16 |
approved GLEP55 (or an alternative) and introduced an EAPI with support |
| 17 |
for -scm suffix, how will you package.mask this new-style live ebuilds? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There is some elusive answer in the GLEP itself [2], but i don't |
| 20 |
understand it: either it's correct but then i wonder why wait for |
| 21 |
GLEP55, or it's not and then there is more than just GLEP55 which |
| 22 |
is needed before allowing this kind of version syntax extension. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thanks for the explanation. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[1] the question at this time was whether slot deps where usable |
| 27 |
there: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/59458 |
| 28 |
[2]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0054.html#backwards-compatibility |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
TGL. |
Archives