On Thursday 17 February 2005 23:28, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > I tend to have the feeling that this GLEP misses one important point. I > can't see which problem it tries to solve. The rationale in the glep is > incomplete in that the issues presented can easilly be solved by being > smart about eclasses. Like Dan says, this does mean that sometimes new > versions are needed. Well that's very very easy. The GLEP doesn't merely propose this, it addresses three issues.
The first is eclass signing. That's a real issue and it should be up to the portage people to decide what's the best solution for them to implement. If they want it to look like this GLEP proposes, that's ok with me. The second is removing the need for backward compatibility. We can live without it, but it'd definitely be nice to have, since it doesn't impose extra requirements on eclasses or ebuilds. I'd really enjoy cleaning up the kde ebuilds. The third is eclass/elib separation. That's the only one I feel not to be a real issue. The proposed solution won't benefit anyone IMHO. I support the other two parts. -- Dan Armak Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951
pgprZMXc91gXo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
