| 1 |
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I have already submitted my application, but want to advertise it over here |
| 5 |
> too :] Comments are welcome! |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Summary: |
| 8 |
> Create Python bindings, associated documentation and test cases for the |
| 9 |
> Paludis public API, and allow subclassing of Paludis classes using Python. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Detailed description: |
| 12 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/soc/application.txt |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
We should not have third-party projects be part of SOC -- specifically, |
| 16 |
things that are not Gentoo projects. I'd lobby this whether it was |
| 17 |
pkgcore or paludis being proposed, so don't bother trying to pin |
| 18 |
partisan accusations. Point is, it's not a Gentoo project. PMS, portage |
| 19 |
tests, or doing a gentoo.org rewrite -- those are Gentoo projects by any |
| 20 |
reasonable standards, I should think. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm very strongly against using Gentoo SoC time and resources for things |
| 23 |
that are not officially part of Gentoo (yes, this statement could be |
| 24 |
spun however you wish) or are not official Gentoo projects. And no, just |
| 25 |
because a project has Gentoo developers in it doesn't mean that it's a |
| 26 |
Gentoo project -- let's avoid the gray areas now, shall we? Just because |
| 27 |
we have Gentoo devs who are also Gnome upstream doesn't make their |
| 28 |
Gnome-related packages that happen to be in our tree official Gentoo |
| 29 |
projects. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
No third-party non-Gentoo SoC projects leeching off our organization and |
| 32 |
resources, please. This includes third-party package managers and |
| 33 |
third-party packages. You want free work, go get it via some other |
| 34 |
entity, not our SoC. |
Archives