1 |
Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o> posted |
2 |
1239208319.6160.8.camel@××××××××××××××××.de, excerpted below, on Wed, 08 |
3 |
Apr 2009 18:31:59 +0200: |
4 |
|
5 |
> I'd like to vote on whether to approve GLEP 54. |
6 |
|
7 |
AFAIK after reading council logs, there were three things holding up GLEP |
8 |
54 as of the last meeting: |
9 |
|
10 |
1) It seems easiest to implement if 55 (or alternative) is implemented in |
11 |
parallel. Thus, for practical reasons, resolution on 54 is to some |
12 |
degree tied to 55. Going ahead with 54 on its own is possible, but |
13 |
knowing where 55 is headed will make it easier. |
14 |
|
15 |
2) Comparative performance tests/benchmarks. There was a bit of delay |
16 |
getting test code into portage, but it's there now. Hopefully those |
17 |
assigned to do the tests have done so and can report their results. |
18 |
|
19 |
3) Most agree now that GLEP 54 on its own is only a first step and |
20 |
doesn't do a whole lot on its own. Whether it's worth the trouble just |
21 |
for itself is debatable. There was some council discussion asking that |
22 |
the comparison be expanded to include at least some idea of what the next |
23 |
steps should be and where it's all headed, with a bit of comparison on |
24 |
how the various proposed implementations would get there. IOW, several |
25 |
folks on the council wanted at least some idea of the big picture, where |
26 |
it's all headed, before they felt comfortable voting on GLEP 54. |
27 |
|
28 |
Issue #2 (performance questions) has had progress and hopefully has a |
29 |
report waiting for this council meeting. Issue #1 (GLEP 55 tie-in) may |
30 |
well resolve itself over time as they seem to have been treated in |
31 |
parallel to a large degree. I'm not sure of the status on Issue #3 (big- |
32 |
picture map-out). Hopefully there has been some progress there as well. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
36 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
37 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |