On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:44:17 +0100 "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable > > and worth spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling > > that i'm not alone on this point > > I don't think anybody is trying to derail it and even if some people > are, they will fail because there are too many others that care a lot > about having some standard.
How many of them care enough to spend hours having to justify things to people who don't even know what PMS is or what it contains? > People are just annoyed that they have to ask for access when it has > been made to look like only very few/special requests will be > granted. And how many of those people just want access because they're curious? PMS is not ready for those types of people yet. It is only ready for people who are going to make substantial contributions (of the order of several pages, at least...). Anyone else who is asking for it is just doing so because they want to meddle. > And because it seems like some portage/pkgcore people are > denied access. I think it would go a long way to preempt this > discussion if the people working on PMS would state that all those > people that are more or less involved with writing/maintaining a > package manager for gentoo would get access on request. I think it > would probably also lead to a better spec which is finished faster. I suggest you have a look at what pkgcore people 'contributed' to GLEP 42 if you really believe that... -- 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
