On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:58:36 -0400 Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would it be more constructive to create a list of new > features/capabilities that depend on this GLEP. For each I'd define: > > 1. The feature/unmet need. > 2. Why it can't be done or can only be done poorly without the new > GLEP. 3. When we're likely to see the feature become available > assuming the GLEP were approved. > 4. What package managers are likely to implement it. (Ie their > maintainers endorse the need. > > It sounds like this list might already have some items on it - so why > not document them?
The GLEP already documents what needs it, in the broadest reasonable terms. The problem with specifics is that everyone will then start arguing about how exactly, say, per-cat/pkg eclasses would work, which is irrelevant to the GLEP. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
