On 20:20 Mon 13 Oct , Wulf C. Krueger wrote: > On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote > > either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst > > package-manager developers and PMS editors. > > So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the tree. EAPI-0 > isn't "actually approved yet", though, so it must not be used in the tree, > right? ;-)
EAPI=0 was grandfathered in, it's unlike any new set of features. > And since EAPI-1 builds upon EAPI-0, that's not acceptable in the tree > either. > > (And, btw, the former council decided there wouldn't be any new EAPIs > before EAPI-0 wasn't approved.) I think that was done under the assumption that EAPI=0 would actually be finished sometime soon. It's now been 8 months since that discussion. I disagree with halting forward progress on something directly relevant to all ebuild developers (important future ebuild features) to specify existing behavior. I think specifications are useful but are not a blocker. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
pgp9nkEXXJhrr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
