[gentoo-dev] Re: Some council topics for March meeting

[Steve Long]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project.  What it is now, I
> have no idea.  While the current PMS project is not what we asked for
> and *is* outside the scope of Gentoo
That's interesting to note.

> , due to our wishing to still *have*
> a specification of EAPI=0, we are wanting to look at other possibilities
> for getting one done.  What the Council is interested in is a
> specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible package
> manager.  At this point, I don't give a damn who writes it or what
> implementation, if any, matches it 100%.  I am pretty sure it'll be
> *very* close to current portage functionality, side-effects and bugs
> excluded, of course.  We asked for a specification.  If the PMS team is
> unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under the terms we
> asked for it, we're going to pursue other options.  We can't control
> PMS< but we also don't have to sit around and do nothing to reach the
> Council's goal of an approved specification for EAPI=0, a goal which I
> believe some people lost sight of some time ago.
>
Thank god someone still has their eye on the ball.


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list