On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:05:07 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvice...@gentoo.org> wrote: > the point about kdebuild-1 and PMS was settled by the previous council > who decided that it wasn't and would never be part of the Gentoo PMS > and asked you to remove it from the document.
Hence the "remove kdebuild" switch you can turn on if you're looking to use PMS for 'official' purposes rather than package manager development. > About it being approved by the Gentoo KDE team, that's not entirely > true. Most of the members of the team at the time worked on it and > opted to use it, but there was never a vote to approve it officially. The Gentoo KDE team lead at the time approved it and recognised it as official. > I don't have a problem with the kdebuild-1 EAPI, but it should be clear > that it was never an official Gentoo EAPI. It was officially approved by the Gentoo KDE team lead on behalf of his team. > It should also be cleared that although it was the chosen EAPI for the > KDE team 18 months ago, it is no longer used by the current team. So? I'd hope people aren't using EAPI 0 for anything new now either. > I suggest we create an Appendix with non-official EAPIs and > non-approved proposals. That way, kdebuild-1 and other EAPIs would be > listed in the Appendix, so we could have a list of features or > proposed features, and it would also be clear they're not official > EAPIs. What do you think? It doesn't work. There's no sensible way of separating out technical details of EAPIs into an appendix whilst keeping things readable. A summary as an appendix with references to the detailed section does work, and that's there already, as is a description of kdebuild-1's status. Also, this has nothing to do with EAPI 3. Please stop flogging this dead horse so that the noise doesn't drown out what we're trying to get done here. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
