On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:51:22 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote:

> Replying to myself is evil, but I'm going to try to clarify a bit
> more. GLEPs are more like RFCs. We can't force any application to do
> anything with a GLEP. We technically can't even force Portage to do
> anything in a GLEP since there's nothing that states Portage is the
> official package manager of Gentoo Linux and must follow all GLEPs. I
> personally feel any GLEP that tries to force any action to be taken
> by application developers and does not include a reference
> implementation or patches for said application(s), is fundamentally
> flawed (this is something I look to address in the future.

It's not about "forcing" anyone to do something but giving people enough
information on how to implement it _if they choose to do so_. With the
current GLEP they'd have to make arbitrary decisions if e.g. a flag is
defined in both use.local.desc and metadata.xml, or some people might
think that it replaces use.local.desc completely.
Really, all I'm looking for is something like

"This proposal does not intend to replace the existing use.local.desc
format. If a flag is defined for a package in both use.local.desc and
metadata.xml the latter should be preferred by tools"

Do you really consider that to be such a huge deal?

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list