In the interests of not being accusatory/one-sided, please replace this phrase:
"- partly your fault" with the phrase "due to ambiguity on the part of Gentoo and Paludis" That is what I meant anyway. I shouldn't have expressed it in such a negative way. Sorry. -Daniel On 3/2/07, Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/2/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, er, to whom does this deadline apply then, if not the people > writing PMS? I have no clue. PMS is not a Gentoo project, so they can't impose a deadline on you. I don't think PMS is deserving of the council's time, as it is not an specification aimed at interoperability, but is a spec for a non-Gentoo project. The fact that it uses Portage as inspiration for its overall design, and is aiming to be compatible with Portage is irrelevant. In my opinion, it falls outside both the council's area of influence *and* intended focus. I believe that Paludis should be treated like any other upstream project. As such, I don't think the council should spend much time thinking about Paludis, and we should also not spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing its design on our mailing lists. If anyone is interested in Paludis cross-compatibility, they can join Paludis lists or irc channels and discuss this with Paludis developers on these lists (in my opinion.) I think there has been way too much blurring of these boundaries as well - partly your fault. I agree with Ciaran that the mention of "PMS: deadlines and interested parties" in the Council agenda trancends the actual authority of the Gentoo Council and should be reconsidered or at least massively clarified so we can understand why it is relevant for the Council to be discussing in the first place. -Daniel
-- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
