| 1 |
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [Thu Oct 13 2005, 01:37:32PM CDT] |
| 2 |
> Problem is that this would mean replace it with another GLEP then.... |
| 3 |
> because it changes basically everything. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I would rather it be replaced by another GLEP, personally. Just yanking |
| 6 |
it isn't sufficient, since it doesn't solve the problem of what to call |
| 7 |
the profile for a freebsd-based system that uses a gnu userland on x86. |
| 8 |
Or is the claim that no such name would be needed? The original e-mail |
| 9 |
suggesting yanking the GLEP wasn't really sufficiently for me to |
| 10 |
understand exactly how the replacement would work. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Also because right now we're not following that scheme anyway right now... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Which is fine, of course, since nothing is in the tree yet, but there |
| 15 |
will be real complaints if this stuff makes it into the tree w/o |
| 16 |
following that GLEP (or a new GLEP if it's approved). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-g2boojum- |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 21 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 22 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 23 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 24 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives