On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett <spbennett@...> wrote:
>>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
>>> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev
>>> list to see.
>>
>> I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's
>> consideration:
>>
>> "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably
>> close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0.
>> Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a
>> timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft
>> standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or
>> package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator
>> or PMS to resolve the differences.
>
> [...]
>
> Is there some reason why this needs to be stated explicity (eg. are
> you having difficulty getting things fixed in the tree?)
>

Currently it can't be referenced from other official documentation.
There's already one GLEP which had to get references to PMS removed
because of this. And it will become a bigger problem when we have more
EAPIs and we can't rely on any spec except short summaries posted to
@dev-announce.

Regards,
-- 
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: cooldwind@...