Stephen Bennett wrote: > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, >> I have no idea. > > A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft. > And it doesn't concern you that after x months, Chris had no idea what it was?
>> What the Council is interested >> in is a specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible >> package manager. > > Which is exactly what PMS is. > Except it's one that needs Paludis ready before it can be considered complete. /me thinks are they really that clever? /me remembers ciaranm's incredibly smart posts from ~2 years ago when he couldn't stand being treated like a noob. >> 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 working to provide it. So far, I haven't been asked for it under > any particular terms other than "at some point in the future, and we > realise that it will take a while to finish". Glad to hear it'll be here in a fortnight. See what a little free and open competition (or even the threat of it) can do? Welcome to the GPL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
