| 1 |
On 20:20 Mon 13 Oct , Wulf C. Krueger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote |
| 4 |
> > either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst |
| 5 |
> > package-manager developers and PMS editors. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the tree. EAPI-0 |
| 8 |
> isn't "actually approved yet", though, so it must not be used in the tree, |
| 9 |
> right? ;-) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
EAPI=0 was grandfathered in, it's unlike any new set of features. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> And since EAPI-1 builds upon EAPI-0, that's not acceptable in the tree |
| 14 |
> either. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> (And, btw, the former council decided there wouldn't be any new EAPIs |
| 17 |
> before EAPI-0 wasn't approved.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think that was done under the assumption that EAPI=0 would actually be |
| 20 |
finished sometime soon. It's now been 8 months since that discussion. I |
| 21 |
disagree with halting forward progress on something directly relevant to |
| 22 |
all ebuild developers (important future ebuild features) to specify |
| 23 |
existing behavior. I think specifications are useful but are not a |
| 24 |
blocker. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Donnie |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 31 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 32 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives