Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Tbh, I don't have any issues with the current solution, but I may be missing 
> something. "Rationale" doesn't seem to help though, afaics it is just saying 
> that the current behaviour  needs to be documented and fwiw PMS draft covers 
> this already:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf - section 3.4.3

Which is fine, but PMS is just a draft.  I'm trying to see if everyone
can accept one solution, instead of throwing things into metadata.xml
and into use.local.desc without the process being documented in one place.
This is more of a proposal to see if we should even change how we do things
today.  Maybe we shouldn't, and that's what I'm trying to figure out...

> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html
> Please, don't use an already assigned GLEP number, it's a bit confusing. Note 
> that 55 is taken as well.

It wasn't taken when I first sent it (as far as I know).  I forgot to
change before resending.  Thanks for reminding me.


Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

Attachment: pgpnYkNt4leuz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to