On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding > (about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent > issues like Tommy is suffering to get multilib stuff done), but I star > to think Ciaran thinks it's easier to simply wear a blindfold on to > keep thinking all what he says cannot be corrected at all, neither > improved and others must follow his instructions blindly
Oh come on. You're just shooting the messenger. You don't like being told that if you want something, someone needs to do the work, and you can't just say "I want a flying unicorn!" and expect it to happen. I'm not the only one saying it, either. I point you to this, for example: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml > Ciaran, simply think that, if PMS team agrees with a doc explaining > what needs to be provided and the procedure, you will also save time > and not need to follow this tedious discussions, all parts will > benefit for sure. The procedure is not the important part. The important part is finding someone who can do enough of the work that the PMS team can understand your proposal and polish off the rough edges. The work that needs to be done for that is very much a case by case thing, and it's not just a simple list of steps that anyone can follow blindly. The features you're asking for that aren't magically appearing are hard. I'll remind you that for "big" features, the GLEP process is already documented. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
