On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org wrote:
- Vote on GLEP 54
This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on
whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed.
The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the
problems mentioned in GLEP 55 being solved.
Conclusion:
Conditionally approved on whether GLEP 55 is approved.
Sorry if the question has already been raised (i would be surprised it
was not), but... Back in january [1], it was decided that base profile
(and thus package.mask) should stay in EAPI=0 syntax. So once you've
approved GLEP55 (or an alternative) and introduced an EAPI with support
for -scm suffix, how will you package.mask this new-style live ebuilds?
There is some elusive answer in the GLEP itself [2], but i don't
understand it: either it's correct but then i wonder why wait for
GLEP55, or it's not and then there is more than just GLEP55 which
is needed before allowing this kind of version syntax extension.
Thanks for the explanation.
[1] the question at this time was whether slot deps where usable
there: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/59458
[2]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0054.html#backwards-compatibility
--
TGL.
