Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-council
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:14:39 +0100
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> I shall remind you, the Council-approved process for PMS changes is
> to send them to this list, and if unanimous agreement can't be
> reached, then to escalate the issue to the Council.

> [...]

> Sorry, but the Council-approved procedure is that patches get sent
> to this list and don't get committed until there aren't objections.
> We don't commit things until everyone's happy with them.

Can you provide a reference for the above please?

> * When did it become policy to use the newest EAPI for ebuilds? I
>   must've missed that becoming policy -- last I heard, policy was to
>   use the oldest EAPI that provides everything you need to write a
>   good ebuild.

I agree on this one.

> * Since PMS became 'suitable for use', we've never committed works
>   in progress to master. We've always used branches for EAPI
>   definitions that aren't complete, and we've never committed EAPIs
>   that haven't had their wording approved by the Council to master.
>   Why are we changing this policy? Where was this policy change
>   discussed?

It's not very helpful to generalise. Let's look at the details, namely
Christian's commits instead:

- "Change minimum required Bash version from 3.0 to 3.2"
   This is a patch prepared by tanderson, and fauli only fixed a
   technical problem (footnotes) with LaTeX. I happen to have a log of
   the discussion in #-dev. Also from your comments in bug 292646 I
   got the impression that you had no objections to the change?

> * Why is disabling kdebuild-1 by default helpful? Why not take the
>   reasonable steps already mentioned first, to ensure that the change
>   does not have adverse impact?

- "Disable kdebuild-1 by default"
   This just changes a binary flag from true to false, namely it
   disables inclusion of kdebuild in the output document. How can this
   change have any adverse impact?

Ulrich


Replies:
Re: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
-- Petteri R├Ąty
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
-- Ulrich Mueller
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Next by thread:
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Previous by date:
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Next by date:
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales


Updated Nov 13, 2011

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-council mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.