On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from >> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.) >> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not >> allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different issue >> ;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why it was >> turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist. > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100823.txt >
Well that was insightful. As suspected,, there was a lot of people saying "Yeaahh, I don't like it", and concluding there were problems with it, but the actual technical issues still haven't been presented to us. While they're still batting for the alternative solutions, which there are known potential issues with. Or did I read it selectively? Can somebody present a real ( or even theoretical ) problem that could arise from having the EAPI in the filename that isn't some abstract hand-waving? Not trying to be a troll here, but really, I still haven't seen any. -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"
