| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:24 -0700 |
| 2 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change. That's |
| 5 |
> not very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time |
| 6 |
> since PMS was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0 |
| 7 |
> or EAPI=1 (or PMS, for that matter). What we have gotten is a |
| 8 |
> half-assed "you can use EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated |
| 9 |
> features" from the Council, but that's nothing like acceptance of a |
| 10 |
> spec. Perhaps if you spent a little more time doing something more |
| 11 |
> constructive than being an asshat on the lists, PMS would have been |
| 12 |
> approved long ago. Of course, that doesn't mesh well with your |
| 13 |
> apparent need to be a complete dick to people, so continue on with |
| 14 |
> the status quo. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
+1 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Kind regards, |
| 20 |
JeR |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives