On Friday 02 June 2006 00:16, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:44:39 +0200 > > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on > > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements. > > Isn't it customary for issues raised on the list to be addressed before > a GLEP is submitted to the council?
Besides the fact that the GLEP is long (overengineered?) there is one main point of disagreement. That point is the requirement of primary package manager hosting. As shown by various council members, they also have their disagreements. It should not be that all points have to be resolved before the council can take a look at a GLEP. Part of the job of the council is to make decisions, not just to rubberstamp things. I believe that currently all things concerning the GLEP have been discussed, so now it is time to get feedback from the council. I did not request a decision now. I requested the council to discuss the GLEP. On another point, the overengineering. Writing a package manager requires a big investment in time. The GLEP is detailed in various points to allow package manager writers to know what they can expect in the future. This gives them a hard target to work with. I agree with grant that the council will let sanity prevail. I do however think that the decisions by the council at such a time could lead to disappointments on the part of people who have written a replacement package manager that is not accepted. In general the document is intended as a guideline for package manager writers that describes their place within gentoo. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpsV2lLD7n2P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
