On Monday 13 October 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:21 -0700 > > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems to me that this is an EAPI=0 change. Since EAPI=1 and > > EAPI=2 are just differences to EAPI=0, they wouldn't be voted on. > > Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote > > either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst > > package-manager developers and PMS editors. > > It's a retroactive change to EAPI 0 that requires changes from > package managers and has security implications... Robert isn't > requesting that we specify and mandate existing behaviour here, so > it's not really something that should be left up to PMS to decide and > enforce.
All package manager developers have implemented this change, and PMS editors have not objected to adding it to the spec. If Ciaran is uncomfortable with adding this change, I would like council to sign off on it. If council will not add this to the agenda, please state so and I hope the PMS folks can add it to the spec without a vote. Furthermore, what are the blockers to vote on PMS as a draft standard for EAPI=0 ? Is there a timeframe for its ratification? Robert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
