On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:26:36 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal <scarab...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Why? It was an official EAPI agreed upon by the Gentoo KDE project. > > Having it there is helpful for package manager people, and removing > > it would just mean more work when features make their way into > > Portage. Besides, if you really don't want to see it, you can just > > make it all invisible with one easy switch. > > > Actualy now people expect kde team to manage support for kdebuild > too. So it is not such crazy request.
There's a lot of kdebuild-1 stuff still out there that the Gentoo KDE team created, and that users used because it was the best option at the time. You can't pretend it never existed. And remember, a package manager can't correctly uninstall something unless it knows about the installed package's EAPI. > > We've been over all this before. Unless you have something new to > > add, kindly avoid wasting people's time. > > And you are not wasting others time by flaming all around glep 54. I > dont mean i dont agree with the glep i just dont agree with your way > promoting it. And if you say i dont have to read all the long flame > around you dont have the right saying somebody else not to write his > ideas on this mailing list. There has yet to be a decent technical objection to kdebuild-1 being in PMS. There has yet to be a decent technical objection to GLEP 54. Anyone going around objecting to either without bringing new material to the table is either trolling or hasn't done their homework. The nature of Gentoo management is such that any unanswered objection is treated as legitimate grounds to stall a proposal indefinitely, even if that objection has been answered ten times previously. I really don't want to see the Council sit around and not approve EAPI 3 until we have the whole kdebuild discussion again. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
