Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi...@gentoo.org> posted 1239208319.6160.8.ca...@homer.ob.libexec.de, excerpted below, on Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:31:59 +0200:
> I'd like to vote on whether to approve GLEP 54. AFAIK after reading council logs, there were three things holding up GLEP 54 as of the last meeting: 1) It seems easiest to implement if 55 (or alternative) is implemented in parallel. Thus, for practical reasons, resolution on 54 is to some degree tied to 55. Going ahead with 54 on its own is possible, but knowing where 55 is headed will make it easier. 2) Comparative performance tests/benchmarks. There was a bit of delay getting test code into portage, but it's there now. Hopefully those assigned to do the tests have done so and can report their results. 3) Most agree now that GLEP 54 on its own is only a first step and doesn't do a whole lot on its own. Whether it's worth the trouble just for itself is debatable. There was some council discussion asking that the comparison be expanded to include at least some idea of what the next steps should be and where it's all headed, with a bit of comparison on how the various proposed implementations would get there. IOW, several folks on the council wanted at least some idea of the big picture, where it's all headed, before they felt comfortable voting on GLEP 54. Issue #2 (performance questions) has had progress and hopefully has a report waiting for this council meeting. Issue #1 (GLEP 55 tie-in) may well resolve itself over time as they seem to have been treated in parallel to a large degree. I'm not sure of the status on Issue #3 (big- picture map-out). Hopefully there has been some progress there as well. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
