| 1 |
On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss |
| 3 |
> the current status of PMS, |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its |
| 6 |
current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. |
| 7 |
The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether |
| 8 |
there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF |
| 9 |
to be approved. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* |
| 12 |
> standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably |
| 15 |
knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only |
| 16 |
person "running" it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side |
| 19 |
> of '09. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is basically the same as the first question from my ability to |
| 22 |
answer it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard |
| 25 |
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, |
| 26 |
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore |
| 27 |
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of |
| 28 |
> the general view. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, |
| 31 |
instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. |
| 32 |
Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you |
| 33 |
filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Donnie |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives