On 11:12 Sun 08 Jun , Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > Hello, > > looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I > have a few technical questions for you: > > 1. GLEP54 > 2. GLEP55
I don't have any particular objections to these, besides the vague aesthetic one of having EAPI in the filename. Particularly long, weird EAPIs filled with special characters (to which some will reply "So don't do that"). It would be pretty cool to be able to sync a portage tree excluding ebuilds of any unsupported EAPI, though. > 3. Most wanted changes in future EAPIs USE deps (in portage as of $recent, so we might be able to do this soon) Anything that's gotten to the point where people hack around it to use it in the tree is clearly something that should become part of an EAPI, a la built_with_use(). That's one kind of action that shows something is a feature we really need. Some features I'd like to see in general use that may not require new EAPIs: -New eclasses and elibs (GLEP 33) -Clean multilib support (PM treating ABI to allow multiples of the same PVR) -USE flag groups (GLEP 29) that don't suck like USE_EXPAND -Signing everything (eclasses and all) -GLEP 42 (news reporting) finally getting used Other things I'd like to see: -A hosting site for all of our patches. This would enable better collaboration with other distros and upstream. -More unit tests, building on the ones I posted to -dev recently. -A real tinderbox server doing continuous integration tests that people can check at any time and that will do the blame game and email people who broke something. -Someone to finish creandus (pioto's user creation thingy) Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
