| 1 |
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:21 -0700 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and EAPI=2 |
| 4 |
> are just differences to EAPI=0, they wouldn't be voted on. Since |
| 5 |
> EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote either. As |
| 6 |
> it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst package-manager |
| 7 |
> developers and PMS editors. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It's a retroactive change to EAPI 0 that requires changes from package |
| 10 |
managers and has security implications... Robert isn't requesting that |
| 11 |
we specify and mandate existing behaviour here, so it's not really |
| 12 |
something that should be left up to PMS to decide and enforce. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I mean, if the Council's comfortable with PMS being used to force |
| 15 |
package manager changes for things that aren't obviously bugs, we could |
| 16 |
do it without asking, but that looks a lot like a slippery slope... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives