| 1 |
On Sunday 20 September 2009 00:54:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:43:35 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >>>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > But it was an official Gentoo project, [...] |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > The 2008-04-10 council summary says something different: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > # The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs could |
| 12 |
> > # not be in an approved PMS document. The spec isn't a place for |
| 13 |
> > # proposals or things that will never be submitted for approval by the |
| 14 |
> > # council. It's a specification, a reference of what is allowed in the |
| 15 |
> > # main tree. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Please point to where the Council said that the Gentoo KDE project |
| 18 |
> wasn't an official Gentoo project. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That is unrelated to the matter. Please stop trying to confuse the discussion |
| 21 |
when you run out of arguments. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The council statement is VERY clear and unambiguous. What other gentoo |
| 24 |
projects do on the side is their thing and not directly related to PMS (unless |
| 25 |
you intend to have the prefix project merge all their changes and new EAPIs |
| 26 |
into PMS?) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I am unsure how to classify your logical fallacy. It fits "non sequitur" and |
| 29 |
"ignoratio elenchi". Either way you know that it doesn't really belong there |
| 30 |
and was meant only to distract us. Which is quite rude ... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> > So, really no need to discuss it further. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Sure there is. Let's look at what happens if you remove it: |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> * It makes it harder for package manager authors to deal with things |
| 37 |
> that were delivered by an official Gentoo project. |
| 38 |
Then they need to read that project's documentation. The genkdesvn project is |
| 39 |
free to split out their own PMS+kdebuild-1 fork. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
The Gentoo KDE project does not care about it and does not, in any way, claim |
| 42 |
to support the kdebuild-1 EAPI. The "kdebuild-*" namespace in PMS, which was |
| 43 |
given to the KDE project, was even reserved for genkdesvn use because the KDE |
| 44 |
project has no need for it and doesn't want to deny the past. (We could have |
| 45 |
opted to have that namespace made unavailable instead ...) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> * It makes doing future EAPIs more work, since we'll almost certainly |
| 48 |
> end up rewriting things that we'd be taking out. |
| 49 |
Irrelevant. Then we'll spend an hour more editing it. You'll even have my help |
| 50 |
doing it! |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> As much as you might like to rewrite history to pretend it never |
| 53 |
> existed, the fact is, kdebuild-1 did exist and we're better off |
| 54 |
> acknowledging that. |
| 55 |
We do. Just that PMS is not the place to document random experiments. The |
| 56 |
council has made it very clear how to handle that. So let the genkdesvn |
| 57 |
project document it as much as they want, noone else does want it. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Take care, |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Patrick |
Archives