-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:26:36 +0100 > Tomáš Chvátal <scarab...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> Why? It was an official EAPI agreed upon by the Gentoo KDE project. >>> Having it there is helpful for package manager people, and removing >>> it would just mean more work when features make their way into >>> Portage. Besides, if you really don't want to see it, you can just >>> make it all invisible with one easy switch. >>> >> Actualy now people expect kde team to manage support for kdebuild >> too. So it is not such crazy request. > > There's a lot of kdebuild-1 stuff still out there that the Gentoo KDE > team created, and that users used because it was the best option at > the time. You can't pretend it never existed. And remember, a package > manager can't correctly uninstall something unless it knows about the > installed package's EAPI. > >>> We've been over all this before. Unless you have something new to >>> add, kindly avoid wasting people's time. >> And you are not wasting others time by flaming all around glep 54. I >> dont mean i dont agree with the glep i just dont agree with your way >> promoting it. And if you say i dont have to read all the long flame >> around you dont have the right saying somebody else not to write his >> ideas on this mailing list. > > There has yet to be a decent technical objection to kdebuild-1 > being in PMS. There has yet to be a decent technical objection to GLEP > 54. Anyone going around objecting to either without bringing new > material to the table is either trolling or hasn't done their homework.
Ciaran, the point about kdebuild-1 and PMS was settled by the previous council who decided that it wasn't and would never be part of the Gentoo PMS and asked you to remove it from the document. Some people have argued about removing that EAPI from your document, but in my view they're wasting time as it simply is not part of the official Gentoo PMS currently. About it being approved by the Gentoo KDE team, that's not entirely true. Most of the members of the team at the time worked on it and opted to use it, but there was never a vote to approve it officially. I have no problem with the overlay still using it and will try to ensure that we don't break it. However, like the members of the KDE team at the time opted to use the kdebuild-1 EAPI, the current members have opted to use EAPI-2 and don't support kdebuild-1 themselves. As the only PM that ever supported kdebuild-1 is paludis, the backwards compatibility issue is not as relevant as no one is asking you to drop the kdebuild-1 support from paludis and portage and pkgcore can keep ignoring those ebuilds. I don't have a problem with the kdebuild-1 EAPI, but it should be clear that it was never an official Gentoo EAPI. It should also be cleared that although it was the chosen EAPI for the KDE team 18 months ago, it is no longer used by the current team. There was a time for it and it opened the road for some very useful features that have already been delivered in EAPI-2 or that are being discussed for future EAPIs. As such, I propose a different approach for this issue. I suggest we create an Appendix with non-official EAPIs and non-approved proposals. That way, kdebuild-1 and other EAPIs would be listed in the Appendix, so we could have a list of features or proposed features, and it would also be clear they're not official EAPIs. What do you think? - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm+6TMACgkQcAWygvVEyAIF6ACgkox34uc08LHpLjW+iSRmCGJe 9MQAn0g0AaOiq1C9pfRcfCTYhyhYb0+D =g6se -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
