-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:14:09 +0200 Tobias Scherbaum
> <dertobi123@g.o> wrote:
>> 3. EAPI/PMS (30 Minutes)
>>
>> 3.1. A process to modify PMS standard that doesn't directly
>> involve the EAPI process. As requested by "Joshua Jackson"
>> <tsunam@...> / User relations: Required people: tsuname,
>> ulm
>>
>> "Per bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261 I'm
>> requesting an AOB for the decision that was made by the PMS team
>> about a process or system to modify the PMS standard that doesn't
>> directly involve the EAPI process currently.
>>
>> I've set the hard date for them for the sept 10th meeting and
>> this gives them 3 weeks to work on this so it should be no issue
>> for them to come to this. I'm expecting them to be able to have a
>> result by then."
>
> I asked Joshua to retract this request because he was basing it on
> the mistaken impression that profiles weren't EAPI controlled (the
> Council voted to put profiles under EAPI control a while ago).
> Unfortunately he hasn't responded, so instead I'll ask the Council
> to disregard this since between the EAPI mechanism and the way
> we've used previously of not introducing changes that will break
> older things (by not reusing names, and not requiring support
> except on EAPI change) we've already got the whole thing covered.
>
Let me address another point that I missed in my previous email.
We are not disputing that profiles/ fall under PMS. Instead, we're
just arguing that EAPI should be restricted to its intended purpose
"Ebuild API".

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqsO/kACgkQcAWygvVEyAIGxgCfegzIuf4my9ANzl1kZZGPCEgY
ZagAnRa2TeRmIIKKaMjUQrIk9/jJEyrS
=TDrz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----