Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Fernando J. Pereda" <ferdy@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:01:05
Message-Id: 20070424195421.GB4929@ferdyx.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 by Doug Goldstein
1 On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
2 > Stephen Bennett wrote:
3 > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
4 > > Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote:
5 > >
6 > >
7 > >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
8 > >> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
9 > >>
10 > >
11 > > There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
12 > > and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
13 > > interim decision.
14 > >
15 > Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and
16 > could not wait for a regular council meeting?
17 >
18 > Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis
19 > doesn't support that.
20 > But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage.
21
22 You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support
23 multiple suffixes, right ?
24
25 Oh... also... paludis supports it in trunk. Could you please stop the
26 conspiracy theories ?
27
28 - ferdy
29
30 --
31 Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
32 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

Replies