| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments |
| 6 |
>>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version |
| 7 |
>>> basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> You can find a recent discussion in bug 402167, comment #4 and |
| 10 |
>> following. <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c4> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I note that there is a link to the council minutes, with the reason |
| 13 |
> for voting "no" against GLEP55 being "it has issues that are |
| 14 |
> unsolved", but I don't see any reference to said issues. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Is the actual IRC transcript available? Because I'd hate for this |
| 17 |
> decision to have been made on the assumption of issues which didn't |
| 18 |
> really exist. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from |
| 21 |
going to the council again (decisions are not forever.) |
| 22 |
Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not |
| 23 |
allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different issue |
| 24 |
;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why it was |
| 25 |
turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-A |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> Kent |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 36 |
> 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 37 |
> |
Archives