1 |
On 21:00 Wed 03 Aug , Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:25:03 -0700 |
3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Items proposed but not on the agenda: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > * Optional runtime dependencies [5] |
8 |
> > - What is the decision to be made? If none, it's not on the agenda |
9 |
> |
10 |
> The decision is on how to proceed: |
11 |
> a) do not do anything at all (i.e. either mention deps in |
12 |
> pkg_postinst(), use plain USE or whatever devs like now), |
13 |
> b) introduce some kind of SDEPEND in a new EAPI [1], |
14 |
> c) re-use USE flags and allow declaring some of them as runtime-only |
15 |
> (so they won't require package rebuilds and just adjust @world |
16 |
> depgraph) [2 mostly, though not necessarily using USE_EXPAND]. |
17 |
|
18 |
The council approves specific proposals, ideally including |
19 |
implementations, that have been discussed by the broader Gentoo |
20 |
community. I don't see us as a group of people who should be exclusively |
21 |
discussing something like this during a meeting instead of with the rest |
22 |
of the community on the -dev mailing list. |
23 |
|
24 |
To me, this looks like something that would involve a GLEP. |
25 |
|
26 |
> > If you have anything you'd like to push to the council for |
27 |
> > discussion, feel free to reply to this thread. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I'd like the Council to put some point on the topic of changing eclass |
30 |
> APIs heavily with EAPI bumps [3]. |
31 |
|
32 |
From the point of view of why I ran for council, this fits under the |
33 |
idea of problems related to individual people or instances rather than |
34 |
broader patterns that need to get dealt with by council policy. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Thanks, |
38 |
Donnie |
39 |
|
40 |
Donnie Berkholz |
41 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
42 |
Gentoo Linux |
43 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |