From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N5Pp1-0003Xd-CR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:17:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DADFFE0A8A; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dev.gentooexperimental.org (dev.gentooexperimental.org [81.93.240.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4747E0A8A for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localnet (xdsl-78-34-174-57.netcologne.de [78.34.174.57]) by dev.gentooexperimental.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A261764B35 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:17:42 +0100 (CET) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:17:38 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.90 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.3.73; x86_64; ; ) References: <19184.25176.380022.392451@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: <19184.25176.380022.392451@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200911032117.38206.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 2a58c70a-1ccd-4ed8-a602-3d09537659f6 X-Archives-Hash: f2c117ffb804636fd80d80953ac86df5 On Tuesday 03 November 2009 18:03:20 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Find below a proposed agenda for our next meeting. > I'd like council to discuss what I consider a major bug in PMS - see the discussion at http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/msg_95a13d880eb521b13d7090f30350c26a.xml Since the PMS / QA ppl seemingly don't have the authority to decide it needs to be deferred to council as far as I can tell. Short version, PMS mandates bash 3.0, eclasses use 3.2 features (e.g. += assignment). No 3.0 ebuild is in the tree anymore, so the PMS requirement is quite silly. Practically the tree has grown beyond what PMS defines (and done so for about a year now with eclasses and ebuilds "violating" PMS with noone caring). I would appreciate a resolution to this issue, preferably one that doesn't kill half our eclasses. Thanks, Patrick