| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin' |
| 3 |
> test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the |
| 4 |
> process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That isn't what has been perceived. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Whoever will take the portage specification will have to provide |
| 9 |
testcases while updating the spec, correctly split an version it to make |
| 10 |
implementation easier and behave properly. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be |
| 13 |
> allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're |
| 14 |
> blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The eapi process is something not defined so they cannot do much about |
| 17 |
it, same for the portage people. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
lu |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Luca Barbato |
| 24 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 25 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 26 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives