In its November meeting [1], the council has unanimously expressed
support for this proposal [2].
However, there is need for additional discussion. From the council
meeting log I could extract the following open questions:
1. What are the implications for non-prefix devs and users?
2. Should the Prefix team be allowed to do the necessary changes to
ebuilds themselves, or should it be done by the respective
maintainers?
3. Are there any backwards compatibility or upgrade path issues for
eclasses that must still accept EAPI 0 (where the new ED, EROOT,
and EPREFIX variables are not defined)?
4. EAPI numbering: Would this simply be added as an additional
feature to EAPI 3? Or should we have an intermediate EAPI slot,
e.g. 2.1 or 3 (and current EAPI 3 renamed to 4 in the latter
case)?
5. Who is going to write the exact specification (PMS patch) for
this EAPI feature?
6. (Any question that I've missed?)
Let's start the discussion now, in order to work out these details
before the next council meeting (December 7th).
Ulrich
[1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt>
(topic was discussed from 21:32 to 22:11 in the log's timezone)
[2]
<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2a62689c71f95e4de5699a330b8b5524.xml>
