| 1 |
Fernando J. Pereda wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400 |
| 7 |
>>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it |
| 12 |
>>>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>> There were three council members who happened to be around at the time, |
| 16 |
>>> and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an |
| 17 |
>>> interim decision. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and |
| 21 |
>> could not wait for a regular council meeting? |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis |
| 24 |
>> doesn't support that. |
| 25 |
>> But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support |
| 29 |
> multiple suffixes, right ? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
Portage doesn't support it in very old versions. The ebuilds in question |
| 32 |
are marked ~arch. Any one using ~arch with an old version of Portage |
| 33 |
would have been forced to upgrade by the point of installing those |
| 34 |
ebuilds. Also, Portage gracefully handles the situation by ignoring |
| 35 |
those ebuilds. |
| 36 |
> Oh... also... paludis supports it in trunk. Could you please stop the |
| 37 |
> conspiracy theories ? |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> - ferdy |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
Like I previously stated, I apologize for not running the very latest |
| 43 |
Paludis trunk. I only have actual releases available to me and those |
| 44 |
releases, including the newest one do not support it. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives