On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Fernando J. Pereda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote: >> At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package >> managers have implemented. > > I'm not sure this intersection isn't empty :/
How about we define this as EAPI=0? =) Jokes aside, I agree with you. Features that all three package managers have already implemented (release or beta) are quite uninteresting. However, this will make for a more sane discussion, and will _actually_ result in an EAPI=2 getting approved, say, in the next Council meeting. I say this is better than a feature-complete EAPI=2 that stays on hold for a year because we can't collectively decide on it, results in PM-specific overlays, loud bitching about how nothing ever gets done, and results in overall wastage of energy. > > We might, however, only discuss features that all 3 package managers can > implement easily. I say this should be done in the context of EAPI=3 once we all agree on what EAPI=2 should contain (let's take it slow ;) If we start discussing EAPI=3 *now*, we _might_ get it out 6 months later[1] ;p 1. Sorry, that's how open source usually works :) -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
