From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HgTQf-000129-JM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:24:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OMN8N9028327; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:23:08 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OMKrPr025771 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:20:54 GMT Received: from [169.14.245.168] (host34.155.212.242.conversent.net [155.212.242.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A75C64FE1 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 From: Seemant Kulleen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200704250001.56920.kugelfang@gentoo.org> References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <1177447194.16472.20.camel@onyx.private.gni.com> <1177451183.18325.4.camel@localhost> <200704250001.56920.kugelfang@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-iE7i4k+v5ryyRh5mhx9D" Organization: Gentoo Foundation Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:21:28 -0400 Message-Id: <1177453288.18325.9.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 X-Archives-Salt: c246c8c2-3588-4350-ad31-49d472ace011 X-Archives-Hash: 9d1e774e5e57597c9a44b8e3b6e59277 --=-iE7i4k+v5ryyRh5mhx9D Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Danny, > Look at it from my POV. I only knew about the alsa version at first. > I knew it was removed already. Then i learned about mplayer. Ok... i can=20 > live with that as long as nothing else in there. Then I learned about=20 > transcode and I asked my fellow Council members to cut it. I'm not sure I see that as a council issue, to be honest, but that's ok. > Besides, the affected maintainers have since then silently and gladly=20 > agreed to remove said versions and agree that we should stick to known=20 > methods until proper combinations of version suffixes have been agreed=20 > on. You see, that would have been my first approach, instead of a rushed council weighing in. > Seemant: I'd like to continue to discuss the ways of council decission=20 > on gentoo-council rather than on gentoo-dev ML. :-) Happy to do that, in the general case. In this specific case, however, it's valid here, because the entire thread revolves around a rather rash council decision (who knew such a thing was even possible?) that affects pretty much all Gentoo developers (and prospective developers). Thanks, Seemant --=-iE7i4k+v5ryyRh5mhx9D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGLoLoiUTIoXwgiI0RAmmbAJ47LFJxO07GyxrtA5+lHZZANiTJDQCfTsDn WhFBCgICCe6t6CAdwxExep0= =Ja02 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-iE7i4k+v5ryyRh5mhx9D-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list