| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 16/06/12 09:37 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 5 |
> El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 13:43 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 6 |
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:26:16 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> |
| 7 |
>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> About suggesting new item (like forcing rebuilding of other |
| 9 |
>>> packages as discussed some days ago and crosscompile support |
| 10 |
>>> suggested by Tommy today), I guess we need to get them voted by |
| 11 |
>>> the council? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> No. You need to get a draft diff for PMS written, along with an |
| 14 |
>> implementation in a package mangler of your choice and proof that |
| 15 |
>> it works in practice. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Umm, this way to work makes any suggestion for future eapis to be |
| 19 |
> accepted only if they come from people able to prepare that |
| 20 |
> implementation in the package manager their prefer and, then, be |
| 21 |
> stalled more and more time :| |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This makes sense to me - the original idea can come from anyone, but |
| 25 |
unless there is support by dev(s) that can maintain the package |
| 26 |
manager(s) and are willing to implement the proposed change, these |
| 27 |
ideas won't go anywhere anyways. Council can't make anything be |
| 28 |
implemented, after all. Also, if there is a working test |
| 29 |
implementation when the vote happens then it's a fairly quick process |
| 30 |
to full implementation once the EAPI is approved. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/fM1cACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDJkAD+I1Y/4BSTz8u6QAIepvFj7Pks |
| 36 |
HoKuSdhyEsZHhD9GGOUA/1qYM8uJ6SZBC3dfJnBQOpXo6ZLz3f7e4lbEIc1BXHbc |
| 37 |
=td0e |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives