Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2014-08-05, o godz. 12:25:17
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisa³(a):

> >>>>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Micha³ Górny wrote:
>
> > I would additionally like to ask Council to consider a three more
> > items for EAPI 6.
>
> > Specifically:
>
> > 1. passing additional configure options (using the usual --help
> > magic):
> > [...]
>
> > 2. additional default suffixes for dohtml: bug #423245 [3].
> > [...]
>
> > 3. build-time switching variant of || (): bug #489458 [4].
>
> I'd rather not add further features to EAPI 6, otherwise it'll never
> be finished. I don't see items 1 and 2 as essential features. In
> addition, comments on the bugs for item 1 seem to indicate that it
> will break some packages.

Comments indicate only that Exherbo done it the way that broke some
packages. However, we already have a good way of avoiding that
(--help). And since it is trivial to implement in-place in Portage, we
should be able to do a tinderbox run before the meeting.

> Concerning item 2, dohtml already has a -A option that allows adding
> further extensions to the list. It doesn't have any option for their
> removal, so I've mixed feelings about adding further extensions as
> default.

Me too but I want the Council to have the final say. IMHO dohtml is 
a big mistake that most developers see as wrapper for 'insinto; doins'
while instead it is a big pack of magic features.

> Item 3 would be important enough to add it. OTOH, it still is in the
> flow; your comment #14 was posted to the bug only today (!). There are
> at least two previous examples where we have had bad experience with
> such last-minute changes.

I doubt it can go anywhere far from it. My comment only summarizes most
of the stuff, and there's still time before the meeting. Considering
the agenda, I suspect that the meeting may even need to be continued
next week -- which brings us even more time.

Of course, there's matter of testing it. However, I am going to work
on || deps in Portage anyway. In the worst case, we can decide to drop
it from final EAPI 6 set. However, I see it as more likely to be
implemented than runtime USE.

--
Micha³ Górny