Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:28:17 +0100:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400 > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> - PMS: >> - status update from spb >> - moving it to Gentoo svn >> - schedule for getting remaining issues settled > > Same question as last time this came up: > > Can you name any other projects where the Council has become involved in > scheduling issues? If I may... take this as at least certain members of the council agreeing with you that certain package management issues are holding up Gentoo (note, I did NOT say portage, per se, but package management issues in general, I'm deliberately leaving it at that general level). Logically, an agreement on some sort of current base package spec, PMS, is, I believe most will agree, the next big step in resolving that issue. Viewed from that angle, the repeated emphasis on a time-line of sorts (regardless of the word used to communicate the idea), let's say for argument's sake (since I don't know others, but am not at a level to know for sure) uniquely, only underscores the importance the council (or certain members thereof, anyway) is now attaching to the issue. Or are you now arguing that movement on package management is /not/ holding back Gentoo, now? BTW, from my read of the portage-dev list, there are several things there on hold for EAPI-1, as well, and while a full definition of EAPI-0 isn't absolutely necessary before moving on EAPI-1, if it's possible time-wise, it's the most logical and convenient way, so that too is holding on the definition of EAPI-0, meaning all three projects appear to be awaiting it in some form or another, thus making it even /more/ critical timewise, regardless of how things turn out package-manager-wise down the pike. -- 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 -- [email protected] mailing list
