| 1 |
On Wednesday, 13. February 2008 19:34:37 Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> Okay, so I stand corrected about them approving it. Where is the |
| 3 |
> approved specification though? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That's something I asked the council, too, here: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/110 |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I got no response from the council on the list. Thus, I asked during the |
| 10 |
next council meeting's "open floor" session: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20071213-summary.txt |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The last paragraph of the summary shows the (non-)result. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> PMS is still a draft the last time I heard, |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well, considering that the approval refers to PMS, some version of it |
| 19 |
seems to be authoritative. :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I just don't know which one (and, as can be seen from the full log of said |
| 22 |
meeting, I consider the external PMS repository authoritative until a |
| 23 |
council decision) and |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
git+ssh://<username>@git.gentoo.org/var/gitroot/pms |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
which was once the "official" copy of the repository doesn't seem to exist |
| 28 |
anymore. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> and if it isn't, we should have a non-moving version that is |
| 31 |
> authoritive about EAPI=1. (And no, the man pages are not a |
| 32 |
> specification, nor is a list of bugs...give us one document that we can |
| 33 |
> point to) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Totally agreed. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives