1 |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:51 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." |
2 |
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On 10/14/11 3:32 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
4 |
>> What do you expect the council to do? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Say it's OK to make python.eclass not die on EAPI-4. At least my use |
7 |
> case will not become broken by this. |
8 |
> |
9 |
>> Neither you nor the council can force anyone to do anything. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Not really. It should always be possible to escalate painful issues like |
12 |
> this. |
13 |
|
14 |
I believe op's point is that there is no one to escalate the problem |
15 |
to; certainly the council members are not going to do the work |
16 |
themselves and we already have our best people on it. |
17 |
|
18 |
-A |
19 |
|
20 |
> |
21 |
>> The only thing you can do is to kindly ask about remaining issues and helping with solving them. And |
22 |
>> i am sure, that everyone would like to see some help to understand and improve the python eclass. :-) |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Maybe we should start over. Seriously, I'm considering proposing some |
25 |
> lightweight eclass for python-dependent packages that *works* |
26 |
> |
27 |
> |