| 1 |
El jue, 15-08-2013 a las 07:42 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 08/15/2013 04:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 14 August 2013 21:17, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >>>>>>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general |
| 7 |
> >>>>>>> progress in gentoo. |
| 8 |
> >>>>>> |
| 9 |
> >>>>>> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works |
| 10 |
> >>>>> |
| 11 |
> >>>>> You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that |
| 12 |
> >>>>> question... |
| 13 |
> >>>> |
| 14 |
> >>>> Well no |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >>> exactly |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> Stop it. Now. |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> gentoo-dev is a list for technical topics, so please take your |
| 21 |
> >> personal quarrels elsewhere. |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> >> Ulrich |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Last warning for both hasufell and Ciaran. Keep the discussion on |
| 27 |
> > acceptable technical and polite levels or go away |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I'm quite surprised that you attack hasufell now for his valid opinion |
| 31 |
> that PMS is not well maintained and does not reflect reality adequately. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Wouldn't be much easy to try to get sets support approved for the next |
| 35 |
eapi? (eapi6 I think). Once we get the usual problems, we can complain |
| 36 |
but, who knows, maybe (as it's already implemented in a PM) it doesn't |
| 37 |
take so long to get approved (or maybe I am being too optimistic :( ) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> (not well maintained: simple patches take months to get applied, and |
| 41 |
> even then often need council interference to be applied. Does not |
| 42 |
> reflect reality: Multiple cases like mandating bash 3.2 that we don't |
| 43 |
> even have in tree anymore, so no compliance testing possible. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Maybe a quick new eapi bump (5.1?) including this and other small |
| 46 |
changes that are quick to implement could help :/ |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> Not |
| 49 |
> documenting package.mask as a directory for EAPI0 even when that feature |
| 50 |
> existed in portage before the initial release of PMS. Etc. etc.) |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I wasn't aware of this issue at all, does it have a bug report tracking |
| 54 |
it? (for knowing its status, why it is being ignored or bringing the |
| 55 |
problem to the council if needed) Please take care that not all people |
| 56 |
are aware of the PMS related issues :) |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Thanks! |
Archives