| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett <spbennett@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote |
| 4 |
>>> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev |
| 5 |
>>> list to see. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's |
| 8 |
>> consideration: |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably |
| 11 |
>> close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. |
| 12 |
>> Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a |
| 13 |
>> timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft |
| 14 |
>> standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or |
| 15 |
>> package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator |
| 16 |
>> or PMS to resolve the differences. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> [...] |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Is there some reason why this needs to be stated explicity (eg. are |
| 21 |
> you having difficulty getting things fixed in the tree?) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Currently it can't be referenced from other official documentation. |
| 25 |
There's already one GLEP which had to get references to PMS removed |
| 26 |
because of this. And it will become a bigger problem when we have more |
| 27 |
EAPIs and we can't rely on any spec except short summaries posted to |
| 28 |
@dev-announce. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 33 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
Archives