-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/01/2012 06:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:13:43 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > >> We already had a discussion about cmake-utils.eclass and forcing >> verbose build log for that which was approved: >> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce7d33748936663e84a5463fbf7f4d39.xml >> >> >> Also we have bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384193 and >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497 >> >> I opened a tracker >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308 >> >> Some devs seem unsure about that or want to have a council vote >> on that https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429332 > > PMS doesn't have such a thing as a 'policy'. Gentoo can have one, > and I believe that should be discussed per Gentoo policy. >
So that would simply mean we add that information to the devmanual? Should I open a bug with a devmanual patch then? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQHFxhAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzNbQIAK2YN5HiLwFuQ8Q1AuIGGBsK 1zEQlO3pb5wSXlfnP7oPMtBjvMaphV+bulwuUWJURE3LRatgSrNOOFsk31T0I5NJ ShsZgzxA5L/ol74STDu1Oshu7dhCdnj9Xz2/6cUIAUuMirPRz+ac74NyclIrNj9T CygYW+F0AFbPVrJAi7/IjuvtUKrpcnlCPSprycnJ0rS9D2ZSuMJ6nI3DLeTjGhra YVWDuklODbUX8ay/lmPveINGpE/bMy0dbygrXr2j+gjl6Q2w7JgYF+muCZlPD8i3 9/wK51nzKGeK855G+5Su8FMmRJwb18RpAs1ztyeOagTStB6+8pi17RsDzg6zPW4= =sOc/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
