On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:18:45 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Why is PMS considered so important that it might have a deadline > > imposed upon it by the Council? > > why is an EAPI spec considered important ? it should be plainly > obvious why something like an EAPI standard matters so much to Gentoo
I'd like it spelt out please. > > As far as I'm aware, nothing like this has been done before. > > so ? letting projects slide in the past is no justification to let > projects in the future slide So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP 23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing and things that users really care about? Is PMS really more important than any of these? > > Now, if there's a good reason for the Council imposing a deadline, > > there's a pretty decent chance that said deadline will be met. If > > the Council can justify why it needs PMS done in a hurry, PMS can > > end up being ready within a very short timeframe. If the Council > > can't justify the deadline, it will end up being done within a not > > so short timeframe, since all the PMS authors are working upon > > several things and won't make PMS top priority without good reason. > > the portage people have things marked for EAPI=1 which are sitting > indefinitely (some features which for sure i want to use myself), but > we cant really tag EAPI=0 final until we have a spec now can we ? Sure you can. It's easy to say "ebuilds that need to rely upon features x, y and z must use EAPI=1, and for everything else continue as has been done in the past until someone says otherwise". -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
