On Sunday 20 September 2009 00:54:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:43:35 +0200
> 
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > >
> > > But it was an official Gentoo project, [...]
> >
> > The 2008-04-10 council summary says something different:
> >
> > # The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs could
> > # not be in an approved PMS document. The spec isn't a place for
> > # proposals or things that will never be submitted for approval by the
> > # council. It's a specification, a reference of what is allowed in the
> > # main tree.
> 
> Please point to where the Council said that the Gentoo KDE project
> wasn't an official Gentoo project.

That is unrelated to the matter. Please stop trying to confuse the discussion 
when you run out of arguments.

The council statement is VERY clear and unambiguous. What other gentoo 
projects do on the side is their thing and not directly related to PMS (unless 
you intend to have the prefix project merge all their changes and new EAPIs 
into PMS?)

I am unsure how to classify your logical fallacy. It fits "non sequitur" and 
"ignoratio elenchi". Either way you know that it doesn't really belong there 
and was meant only to distract us. Which is quite rude ...

> > So, really no need to discuss it further.
> 
> Sure there is. Let's look at what happens if you remove it:
> 
> * It makes it harder for package manager authors to deal with things
>   that were delivered by an official Gentoo project.
Then they need to read that project's documentation. The genkdesvn project is 
free to split out their own PMS+kdebuild-1 fork.

The Gentoo KDE project does not care about it and does not, in any way, claim 
to support the kdebuild-1 EAPI. The "kdebuild-*" namespace in PMS, which was 
given to the KDE project, was even reserved for genkdesvn use because the KDE 
project has no need for it and doesn't want to deny the past. (We could have 
opted to have that namespace made unavailable instead ...)
 
> * It makes doing future EAPIs more work, since we'll almost certainly
>   end up rewriting things that we'd be taking out.
Irrelevant. Then we'll spend an hour more editing it. You'll even have my help 
doing it!

> As much as you might like to rewrite history to pretend it never
> existed, the fact is, kdebuild-1 did exist and we're better off
> acknowledging that.
We do. Just that PMS is not the place to document random experiments. The 
council has made it very clear how to handle that. So let the genkdesvn 
project document it as much as they want, noone else does want it.

Take care,

Patrick