Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:17:48
Message-Id: 200911032117.38206.patrick@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09 by Ulrich Mueller
On Tuesday 03 November 2009 18:03:20 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Find below a proposed agenda for our next meeting. >
I'd like council to discuss what I consider a major bug in PMS - see the discussion at http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/msg_95a13d880eb521b13d7090f30350c26a.xml Since the PMS / QA ppl seemingly don't have the authority to decide it needs to be deferred to council as far as I can tell. Short version, PMS mandates bash 3.0, eclasses use 3.2 features (e.g. += assignment). No 3.0 ebuild is in the tree anymore, so the PMS requirement is quite silly. Practically the tree has grown beyond what PMS defines (and done so for about a year now with eclasses and ebuilds "violating" PMS with noone caring). I would appreciate a resolution to this issue, preferably one that doesn't kill half our eclasses. Thanks, Patrick

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09 Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>