On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200
> > Thomas Sachau <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok
> >> with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council agenda
> >> for EAPI-5 addition.
> > Got a diff for PMS?
> Last time you only requested enough details for implementation, you did
> not require a PMS diff, so i wrote more details for the implementation.
> If you, Brian (for pkgcore) and zmedico accept this for EAPI-5, i might
> look into creating a diff against PMS but until then, i dont want to
> waste my time, especially since noone commented on the implementation
> details or the technical details and any change would require even more
> work to rework/adjust the PMS diff.
You need a glep here frankly; per the norm, if you want things to move
faster, then put in time- aka, generate a patch against PMS, write a
patch for portage, etc, you get the idea. The bit re: a PMS patch is
mostly that in looking at your proposal... well, I personally don't
want to write that patch (nor do I suspect ulm/ciaran do either).
One thing to note; this has been posted for all of 2-3 days; that's
not exactly much time for 1) people to comment, 2) people to frankly
comprehend the quite dense description you wrote.
Please write a glep covering details of the implementation,
background, preferablly why this route over others. Bluntly... clue
everyone else in rather than hoping they'll just sign off on a fairly
opaque list of things. :) It'll be useful for dev education also-
which is a bit of a requirement for stuff of this sort considering
it's not going to be a magic deploy/shit works everywhere situation I
Would also be useful getting commentary from crossdev folk considering
your solution is intended to be (best I can tell) full cross
compilation support, and they've been leading that front for many,