On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:56:26 +0000
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
> it isn't a "mistaken impression". Both Joshua and me think there are
> alternatives and that the choice to put profiles/* under EAPI was
> unfortunate and should be reviewed.

Why were those alternatives never expressed? Why were your objections
not raised at the time, and why have you never explained what you think
is wrong with it or what you think a better option would be?

> It's also my opinion that what the council approved was the use of a
> EAPI file under each profile to mark the type of atoms that can be
> used in the profile files (slots, etc).

What the council agreed upon is not a matter of opinion. The council
agreed to introduce EAPI control to profiles/. This was in no way
limited to "the types of atoms that can be used", and the wording and
design were very deliberately constructed *not* to limit the changes to
those kinds of things.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh