| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
| 4 |
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
| 5 |
> to discuss or vote on. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Please respond to this email with agenda items. Please do not |
| 8 |
> hestitate to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you |
| 9 |
> previously suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I've two items: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
- Allow using EAPI 5 in the tree. |
| 14 |
Portage supports EAPI 5 since version 2.1.11.19. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
- Package names: |
| 17 |
Our current spec forbids that package names "end in a hyphen |
| 18 |
followed by one or more digits". This isn't consequent, since it |
| 19 |
still allows PN to be e.g. "foo-1a" which looks like a valid PF. |
| 20 |
OTOH, there's no technical reason for this limitation (backwards |
| 21 |
compatibility issues taken aside). |
| 22 |
Since this issue is open since more than five years, I believe that |
| 23 |
it's time to ask the council for guidance in what direction we |
| 24 |
should go: |
| 25 |
a) Drop the limitation entirely (possibly in a future EAPI). |
| 26 |
b) Make it stricter, i.e. disallow package names ending in a |
| 27 |
hyphen followed by anything that looks like a valid PVR. |
| 28 |
This is current Portage behaviour, and the tree complies with |
| 29 |
it, too. |
| 30 |
c) Leave the spec as it is (and make Portage comply with it). |
| 31 |
See bug 174536 for details. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
Archives