| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett <spbennett@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote |
| 3 |
>> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev |
| 4 |
>> list to see. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's |
| 7 |
> consideration: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably |
| 10 |
> close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. |
| 11 |
> Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a |
| 12 |
> timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft |
| 13 |
> standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or |
| 14 |
> package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator |
| 15 |
> or PMS to resolve the differences. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Is this not already the status quo? Surely a number of bugs in the |
| 18 |
tree have already been fixed in this manner. |
| 19 |
Is there some reason why this needs to be stated explicity (eg. are |
| 20 |
you having difficulty getting things fixed in the tree?) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-Alec |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> "On the differences between EAPI 0 and EAPI 1, a much smaller topic, |
| 26 |
> it is complete and can stand as a full specification" |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such |
| 29 |
> a statement can be made? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
Archives