| 1 |
Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, |
| 5 |
>> I have no idea. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
And it doesn't concern you that after x months, Chris had no idea what it |
| 10 |
was? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
>> What the Council is interested |
| 13 |
>> in is a specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible |
| 14 |
>> package manager. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Which is exactly what PMS is. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
Except it's one that needs Paludis ready before it can be considered |
| 19 |
complete. /me thinks are they really that clever? /me remembers ciaranm's |
| 20 |
incredibly smart posts from ~2 years ago when he couldn't stand being |
| 21 |
treated like a noob. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>> We asked for a specification. If the PMS |
| 24 |
>> team is unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under |
| 25 |
>> the terms we asked for it |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> We're working to provide it. So far, I haven't been asked for it under |
| 28 |
> any particular terms other than "at some point in the future, and we |
| 29 |
> realise that it will take a while to finish". |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Glad to hear it'll be here in a fortnight. See what a little free and open |
| 32 |
competition (or even the threat of it) can do? Welcome to the GPL. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives