| 1 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:43:35 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > But it was an official Gentoo project, [...] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The 2008-04-10 council summary says something different: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> # The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs could |
| 10 |
> # not be in an approved PMS document. The spec isn't a place for |
| 11 |
> # proposals or things that will never be submitted for approval by the |
| 12 |
> # council. It's a specification, a reference of what is allowed in the |
| 13 |
> # main tree. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Please point to where the Council said that the Gentoo KDE project |
| 16 |
wasn't an official Gentoo project. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> So, really no need to discuss it further. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Sure there is. Let's look at what happens if you remove it: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
* It makes it harder for package manager authors to deal with things |
| 23 |
that were delivered by an official Gentoo project. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
* It makes doing future EAPIs more work, since we'll almost certainly |
| 26 |
end up rewriting things that we'd be taking out. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As much as you might like to rewrite history to pretend it never |
| 29 |
existed, the fact is, kdebuild-1 did exist and we're better off |
| 30 |
acknowledging that. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives