On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200 > > Thomas Sachau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is ok > >> with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council agenda > >> for EAPI-5 addition. > > > > Got a diff for PMS? > > > > Last time you only requested enough details for implementation, you did > not require a PMS diff, so i wrote more details for the implementation. > > If you, Brian (for pkgcore) and zmedico accept this for EAPI-5, i might > look into creating a diff against PMS but until then, i dont want to > waste my time, especially since noone commented on the implementation > details or the technical details and any change would require even more > work to rework/adjust the PMS diff.
You need a glep here frankly; per the norm, if you want things to move faster, then put in time- aka, generate a patch against PMS, write a patch for portage, etc, you get the idea. The bit re: a PMS patch is mostly that in looking at your proposal... well, I personally don't want to write that patch (nor do I suspect ulm/ciaran do either). One thing to note; this has been posted for all of 2-3 days; that's not exactly much time for 1) people to comment, 2) people to frankly comprehend the quite dense description you wrote. Please write a glep covering details of the implementation, background, preferablly why this route over others. Bluntly... clue everyone else in rather than hoping they'll just sign off on a fairly opaque list of things. :) It'll be useful for dev education also- which is a bit of a requirement for stuff of this sort considering it's not going to be a magic deploy/shit works everywhere situation I suspect. Would also be useful getting commentary from crossdev folk considering your solution is intended to be (best I can tell) full cross compilation support, and they've been leading that front for many, many years. Cheers- ~brian
