On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@...> wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote:
>>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments
>>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version
>>> basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all.
>> You can find a recent discussion in bug 402167, comment #4 and
>> following. <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c4>
> I note that there is a link to the council minutes, with the reason
> for voting "no" against GLEP55 being "it has issues that are
> unsolved", but I don't see any reference to said issues.
> Is the actual IRC transcript available? Because I'd hate for this
> decision to have been made on the assumption of issues which didn't
> really exist.
The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from
going to the council again (decisions are not forever.)
Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not
allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different issue
;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why it was
turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist.
> perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
> 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"