Chris Gianelloni wrote: > The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, I > have no idea. While the current PMS project is not what we asked for > and *is* outside the scope of Gentoo That's interesting to note.
> , due to our wishing to still *have* > a specification of EAPI=0, we are wanting to look at other possibilities > for getting one done. What the Council is interested in is a > specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible package > manager. At this point, I don't give a damn who writes it or what > implementation, if any, matches it 100%. I am pretty sure it'll be > *very* close to current portage functionality, side-effects and bugs > excluded, of course. We asked for a specification. If the PMS team is > unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under the terms we > asked for it, we're going to pursue other options. We can't control > PMS< but we also don't have to sit around and do nothing to reach the > Council's goal of an approved specification for EAPI=0, a goal which I > believe some people lost sight of some time ago. > Thank god someone still has their eye on the ball. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
