Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:05:12
Message-Id: 20090913010503.0ad46402@snowmobile
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting by "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
1 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:56:26 +0000
2 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
3 > it isn't a "mistaken impression". Both Joshua and me think there are
4 > alternatives and that the choice to put profiles/* under EAPI was
5 > unfortunate and should be reviewed.
6
7 Why were those alternatives never expressed? Why were your objections
8 not raised at the time, and why have you never explained what you think
9 is wrong with it or what you think a better option would be?
10
11 > It's also my opinion that what the council approved was the use of a
12 > EAPI file under each profile to mark the type of atoms that can be
13 > used in the profile files (slots, etc).
14
15 What the council agreed upon is not a matter of opinion. The council
16 agreed to introduce EAPI control to profiles/. This was in no way
17 limited to "the types of atoms that can be used", and the wording and
18 design were very deliberately constructed *not* to limit the changes to
19 those kinds of things.
20
21 --
22 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>