| 1 |
OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure, |
| 2 |
and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a |
| 3 |
Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be |
| 4 |
treating it if it is a Gentoo project. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Right? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
-Daniel |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On 3/2/07, Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
> Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 12 |
> > I don't understand half of what you said. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > You are saying that PMS is a sub-project of QA? Is the PMS spec hosted |
| 15 |
> > on Gentoo infrastructure? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > From all I have read, PMS is meant to define the functionality of |
| 18 |
> > Paludis itself, which is not a Gentoo project. Because of this, PMS |
| 19 |
> > can't be considered a Gentoo project. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That may be what it's meant to do now, but that was not the original purpose. It |
| 22 |
> was originally to be a written specification of EAPI=0, which is essentially |
| 23 |
> portage's current functionality. It's only later that the whole PMS == Paludis |
| 24 |
> thing came about. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ |
| 28 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives