On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:37:33 +0200
Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Putting in a wait for 4 or 8 weeks or whatever doesn't cost us
> anything but does simplify things and gives us a clear deployment
> process.
It loses us reasonably wide testing of Portage's implementation in
~arch. I'd rather not see
Roy Bamford wrote:
> What about the case where the new EAPI breaks backwards compatibility
> with existing package managers, as would be the case with glep 55?
>
> Its quite true that such changes can be introduced after a wait and
> only upset late adoptors. By implementing the key feature of g
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Oh please no wiki.
Whatever. My requirements are quite simple: public accessible, no
accounts needed on 3rd party systems (like Google) to add feature
requests or comments and changes must be traceable. Using bugzilla fits
those criteria as well.
> The problem for EAPI 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.06.10 22:21, Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
[snip]
> The main "problem" is that there is no deployment process for newer
> EAPIs specified right now. In the past we had something like "there
> must be two releases (stage sets) including a Portage ver
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:21:49 +0200
Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> And for EAPI development: I did dislike the google spreadsheet which
> has been used for EAPI-3 and don't think this has proved to be
> useful. If we do opt for any public collaboration development process
> (instead of say some file in
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> EAPI 3: Short discussion of the progress
>
>
> zmedico will provide an update on the progress of the implementation. Short
> discussion of problems and implementation decisions if needed.
Guess that's a rather short topic. Nothing t
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Bash-4 in EAPI-3
> >
> > Goal: A request has been made to allow bash-4.0 features in
> > EAPI-3. Decide first whether or not to open the EAPI-3 feature
> > list at all.
> No. bash-4 has seen some regressions and some oddities. 2
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:00:22 -0500
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > zmedico will provide an update on the progress of the
> > implementation. Short discussion of problems and implementation
> > decisions if needed.
>
> I'd say let's involve all the package manager maintainer groups. Each
> packager manag
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 21:00 -0500 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> > irc.freenode.net) !
> >
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
>
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> My plan is to go over each package as time permits, check the license and
> then make the x-modular eclass set the default license to MIT instead of
> ${PN}.
>
> I could definitely use a hand to check all those packages :)
>
Here's a list of pa
Nirbheek Chauhan a écrit :
The x11 team[1] came to the conclusion that following RedHat's lead
and just using MIT as license for Xorg packages should suffice since
they are quite careful about these things. This should definitely be
better than the current practice anyway.
That's indeed my plan
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Default ACCEPT_LICENSE
> --
> Goal: A possible default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE has been proposed. Decide
> whether that's ok. What happens to the X11 license files (one for each app)?
>
The x11 team[1] came to the conclus
13 matches
Mail list logo
