| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> I'm not looking to start a fight, and frankly after a year or so |
| 4 |
>> I've learned to just subconsciously/automatically ignore kdebuild, |
| 5 |
>> but why exactly must this be in pms? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Because we have not yet established that no users have kdebuild |
| 8 |
> things installed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is not a fact that could ever be verified, therefore your |
| 11 |
argument is nonsensical. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Thus, package managers that support it have to go on supporting it. |
| 14 |
> Once kdebuild can be safely removed from package managers that have |
| 15 |
> supported it, it can then be removed from PMS. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Last mention of kdebuild was removed from the KDE overlay at |
| 18 |
2008-09-23, which was more than one year ago. Generally we don't |
| 19 |
support upgrades of outdated systems for more than one year. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But it's irrelevant anyway, since it was never an approved EAPI. |
| 22 |
Therefore, we can remove it any time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And as was already pointed out several times, there was a council |
| 25 |
decision about the issue in the 2008-04-10 meeting: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
| The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs could |
| 28 |
| not be in an approved PMS document. The spec isn't a place for |
| 29 |
| proposals or things that will never be submitted for approval by the |
| 30 |
| council. It's a specification, a reference of what is allowed in the |
| 31 |
| main tree. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
Archives