On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:21 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and EAPI=2 > are just differences to EAPI=0, they wouldn't be voted on. 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.
It's a retroactive change to EAPI 0 that requires changes from package managers and has security implications... Robert isn't requesting that we specify and mandate existing behaviour here, so it's not really something that should be left up to PMS to decide and enforce. I mean, if the Council's comfortable with PMS being used to force package manager changes for things that aren't obviously bugs, we could do it without asking, but that looks a lot like a slippery slope... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
