Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
>
>> Danny van Dyk wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
>>> decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
>>> sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
>>>
>>> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
>>> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
>>> package versions are considered illegal:
>>>
>>>   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
>>>   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
>>>
>>> An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has
>>> already been removed from the tree.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these
>>> versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks
>>> in advance for this.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>>
>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and
>> it be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next
>> meeting.
>>
>
> No, that's not correct. 1 council member can't do that. During the
> council meeting of March 8th 2007 the Council decided that at least 2
> members are necessary to act for the whole Council.
>
> FYI this decission has been made by 3 Council members, which have been
> Robin, Bryan and which has been initiated by myself. Further, QA
> indicated approval prior to this council decission.
>
>
>> Danny,
>>
>> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in
>> paludis and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to
>> be no reasonable way to support that?
>>
>
> Doug,
>
> a) Paludis could support arbitrary combinations of multiple version
> suffixes the same way as Portage currently support this. The Paludis
> developers chose not to, because
>
> b) A very large number of possible suffix combinations aren't sensible.
> Instead of implicitly allowing every possible combination, one should
> explicitly allow the sensible subset and explicitly disallow the rest.
>
> c) I try very hard to seperate my interest and work on Gentoo and the
> Council and my interest and work on Paludis.
>
> Personally, I would appreciate if you got back to me before you make
> claims as the ones i just responded to. Both claims are wrong: One
> evidently so (you can ask kloeri and robbat2), for the other you have
> to trust either me or ask the other Paludis devs.
>
> Danny
>
QA being spb, who is a noted paludis developer....
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list