| 1 |
On Monday 13 October 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:21 -0700 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and |
| 6 |
> > EAPI=2 are just differences to EAPI=0, they wouldn't be voted on. |
| 7 |
> > Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote |
| 8 |
> > either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst |
| 9 |
> > package-manager developers and PMS editors. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It's a retroactive change to EAPI 0 that requires changes from |
| 12 |
> package managers and has security implications... Robert isn't |
| 13 |
> requesting that we specify and mandate existing behaviour here, so |
| 14 |
> it's not really something that should be left up to PMS to decide and |
| 15 |
> enforce. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
All package manager developers have implemented this change, and PMS |
| 18 |
editors have not objected to adding it to the spec. If Ciaran is |
| 19 |
uncomfortable with adding this change, I would like council to sign off |
| 20 |
on it. If council will not add this to the agenda, please state so and |
| 21 |
I hope the PMS folks can add it to the spec without a vote. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Furthermore, what are the blockers to vote on PMS as a draft standard |
| 24 |
for EAPI=0 ? Is there a timeframe for its ratification? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Robert |
Archives