| 1 |
On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments |
| 5 |
>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version |
| 6 |
>> basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You can find a recent discussion in bug 402167, comment #4 and |
| 9 |
> following. <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c4> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I note that there is a link to the council minutes, with the reason |
| 12 |
for voting "no" against GLEP55 being "it has issues that are |
| 13 |
unsolved", but I don't see any reference to said issues. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Is the actual IRC transcript available? Because I'd hate for this |
| 16 |
decision to have been made on the assumption of issues which didn't |
| 17 |
really exist. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Kent |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 25 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
Archives