-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 .Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole > "people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it" > thing to have given up discussing it in public yet.
Mike Frysinger wrote: > i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable and worth > spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling that i'm not alone > on this point I don't think anybody is trying to derail it and even if some people are, they will fail because there are too many others that care a lot about having some standard. People are just annoyed that they have to ask for access when it has been made to look like only very few/special requests will be granted. And because it seems like some portage/pkgcore people are denied access. I think it would go a long way to preempt this discussion if the people working on PMS would state that all those people that are more or less involved with writing/maintaining a package manager for gentoo would get access on request. I think it would probably also lead to a better spec which is finished faster. Marijn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF6YnBp/VmCx0OL2wRAjICAJ9d6gcjW8r6tZaEU16ZqjEqK1DQTgCeP7GQ oBbVQ5fGoNIgVYhgXF9/3P8= =2eGF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
