| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
.Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole |
| 6 |
> "people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it" |
| 7 |
> thing to have given up discussing it in public yet. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 10 |
> i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable and worth |
| 11 |
> spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling that i'm not alone |
| 12 |
> on this point |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I don't think anybody is trying to derail it and even if some people are, they will fail |
| 15 |
because there are too many others that care a lot about having some standard. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
People are just annoyed that they have to ask for access when it has been made to look like only very few/special requests will be |
| 18 |
granted. And because it seems like some portage/pkgcore people are denied access. I think it would go a long way to preempt this |
| 19 |
discussion if the people working on PMS would state that all those people that are more or less involved with writing/maintaining |
| 20 |
a package manager for gentoo would get access on request. I think it would probably also lead to a better spec which is finished |
| 21 |
faster. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Marijn |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQFF6YnBp/VmCx0OL2wRAjICAJ9d6gcjW8r6tZaEU16ZqjEqK1DQTgCeP7GQ |
| 29 |
oBbVQ5fGoNIgVYhgXF9/3P8= |
| 30 |
=2eGF |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives