On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote > either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst > package-manager developers and PMS editors.
So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the tree. EAPI-0 isn't "actually approved yet", though, so it must not be used in the tree, right? ;-) And since EAPI-1 builds upon EAPI-0, that's not acceptable in the tree either. (And, btw, the former council decided there wouldn't be any new EAPIs before EAPI-0 wasn't approved.) While I agree with your intention of letting people decide upon the stuff they have to work with mostly on their own and with each other, I think your argument, Donnie, is rather "interesting". :-) Best regards, Wulf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
