On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I am strongly in favor of the eapi-based approach as well, for all of
> the reasons mentioned in the thread so far.
Good thing your proxy got it right then! :)
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140617-summary
Hi all:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 07:00:15AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> During the council meeting there was a bit of a philosophical debate
> over the proper role of EAPI vs implementing functions in eclasses. I
> felt that it was important enough to at least get more community input
> before we
El dom, 15-06-2014 a las 07:00 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> I debated where to post this, but the topic is fairly dev-oriented and
> has big long-term impact so I landed here. This really isn't
> organizational in nature.
>
> During the council meeting there was a bit of a philosophical debate
Dnia 2014-06-15, o godz. 07:00:15
Rich Freeman napisał(a):
> The Eclass argument goes like this:
> Eclasses already work in every PM. Half of what we're debating is
> already in eutils. Why move this code into the PM, where it has to be
> re-implemented everywhere? If anything we should be mov
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:00:15 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> The Eclass argument goes like this:
> Eclasses already work in every PM. Half of what we're debating is
> already in eutils. Why move this code into the PM, where it has to be
> re-implemented everywhere? If anything we should be moving m
