Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:14:57
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales by Ciaran McCreesh
1 >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3 > I shall remind you, the Council-approved process for PMS changes is
4 > to send them to this list, and if unanimous agreement can't be
5 > reached, then to escalate the issue to the Council.
7 > [...]
9 > Sorry, but the Council-approved procedure is that patches get sent
10 > to this list and don't get committed until there aren't objections.
11 > We don't commit things until everyone's happy with them.
13 Can you provide a reference for the above please?
15 > * When did it become policy to use the newest EAPI for ebuilds? I
16 > must've missed that becoming policy -- last I heard, policy was to
17 > use the oldest EAPI that provides everything you need to write a
18 > good ebuild.
20 I agree on this one.
22 > * Since PMS became 'suitable for use', we've never committed works
23 > in progress to master. We've always used branches for EAPI
24 > definitions that aren't complete, and we've never committed EAPIs
25 > that haven't had their wording approved by the Council to master.
26 > Why are we changing this policy? Where was this policy change
27 > discussed?
29 It's not very helpful to generalise. Let's look at the details, namely
30 Christian's commits instead:
32 - "Change minimum required Bash version from 3.0 to 3.2"
33 This is a patch prepared by tanderson, and fauli only fixed a
34 technical problem (footnotes) with LaTeX. I happen to have a log of
35 the discussion in #-dev. Also from your comments in bug 292646 I
36 got the impression that you had no objections to the change?
38 > * Why is disabling kdebuild-1 by default helpful? Why not take the
39 > reasonable steps already mentioned first, to ensure that the change
40 > does not have adverse impact?
42 - "Disable kdebuild-1 by default"
43 This just changes a binary flag from true to false, namely it
44 disables inclusion of kdebuild in the output document. How can this
45 change have any adverse impact?
47 Ulrich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>