Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:04:29
Message-Id: 20091211174339.6489c086@snowmobile
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales by Ulrich Mueller
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:34:09 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> We can considerably shorten this discussion, because it boils down > >> to the following: PMS is an official Gentoo document, and therefore > >> it's not upon you to make this decision. > > > Alright. We'll escalate this to the Council then. > > No need for that, as it has already been voted on in the 2008-04-10 > council meeting (repeating it, as you've added gentoo-council to CC): > > | 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.
And the resolution for that was to make it possible to disable kdebuild-1. That is not the same as deleting it while there are still users who have kdebuild-1 packages installed. I shall remind you, the Council-approved process for PMS changes is to send them to this list, and if unanimous agreement can't be reached, then to escalate the issue to the Council.
> > In the mean time, I'll give Christian a day or two to revert every > > patch he's applied recently that didn't follow the Council-mandated > > review process, or I can do the revert for him if he doesn't have > > time himself. > > Don't.
Sorry, but the Council-approved procedure is that patches get sent to this list and don't get committed until there aren't objections. We don't commit things until everyone's happy with them. I have objections to several of those patches, and they haven't been addressed. If you'd like to address them now, please do so: * When did it become policy to use the newest EAPI for ebuilds? I must've missed that becoming policy -- last I heard, policy was to use the oldest EAPI that provides everything you need to write a good ebuild. * Since PMS became 'suitable for use', we've never committed works in progress to master. We've always used branches for EAPI definitions that aren't complete, and we've never committed EAPIs that haven't had their wording approved by the Council to master. Why are we changing this policy? Where was this policy change discussed? * Why is disabling kdebuild-1 by default helpful? Why not take the reasonable steps already mentioned first, to ensure that the change does not have adverse impact? -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature