On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >>> >>> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >>> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >>> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users >>> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. >>> >> >> Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, >> make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy >> that ease life BOTH for developers and users. > > ++ > > I think the qt team taking the lead on this makes sense, but this is > the sort of thing that just makes sense as a treewide policy. If > people don't like their suggested policy they can take it to > QA/council/whatever, but it makes more sense to have projects setting > standards than having everybody doing their own thing. > > I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're > better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, > than having a bazillion different conventions that users have to deal > with. Usually I prefer maintainer autonomy, but this is just one of > those times it doesn't make sense. >
Isn't this moving towards a situation that we used GLEP 39 to remove?
