On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote >>> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev >>> list to see. >> >> I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's >> consideration: >> >> "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably >> close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. >> Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a >> timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft >> standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or >> package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator >> or PMS to resolve the differences. > > [...] > > Is there some reason why this needs to be stated explicity (eg. are > you having difficulty getting things fixed in the tree?) >
Currently it can't be referenced from other official documentation. There's already one GLEP which had to get references to PMS removed because of this. And it will become a bigger problem when we have more EAPIs and we can't rely on any spec except short summaries posted to @dev-announce. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
