Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Marek Szuba <marecki@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting on 2022-02-13
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 07:37:30
Message-Id: u8rup932q@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting on 2022-02-13 by Marek Szuba
1 >>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, Marek Szuba wrote:
2
3 > The next Gentoo Council meeting will take place on 2022-02-13
4 > (Sunday), starting 19:00 UTC.
5
6 > Please reply to this e-mail with proposed agenda items. If you
7 > suggested anything between the last council meeting and now, you are
8 > encouraged to raise the matter again in this thread and include
9 > link(s) to your earlier communication.
10
11 As I had announced in the January meeting, I'd ask the Council to
12 pre-approve the list of features for EAPI 9, as listed here:
13
14 https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Future_EAPI/EAPI_9_tentative_features
15
16 - Eclass revisions [1]
17 - EAPI of profiles defaults to repository EAPI [2]
18 - Allow comments in profile parent files [3]
19 - econf: Ensure proper end of string in configure --help output [4]
20
21 This will be an EAPI with few new features, and its motivation is mainly
22 to have eclass revisions. The second and third feature will affect only
23 profiles, and the fourth feature is effectively a bug fix.
24
25 There were also ideas about no longer exporting A (or alternatively, any
26 variables) to the ebuild environment [5], but nobody has come forward
27 with a concrete proposal yet. So, IMHO it will need more discussion and
28 won't be ready for EAPI 9; developers who have asked for the feature may
29 consider leading that discussion. IIUC, these would be the TeX and Go
30 maintainers.
31
32 Ulrich
33
34 [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/806592
35 [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/806181
36 [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/470094
37 [4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/815169
38 [5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/721088

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies