On Friday 18 February 2005 16:34, Dan Armak wrote: > 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.
Ok, I should not try to reply to these long emails late in the evening. I only saw the last proposal, to which I don't see the issue either. Eclass signing is certainly important, and backward compatibility must be limited. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpgX7VjsuK0p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
