Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1644 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 19:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:


> It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is
> trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that
> somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo.  Yeah... because that's
> just what the Council wants to do, make Gentoo a steaming pile of rubble
> so we can be the supreme rulers of... nothing.  Now, if only we can get
> all these pesky developers out of the way, we could rule the world!


You're right, there is.  For the record, though, my feeling isn't
anything about being anti-authority, etc.  Quite the opposite, in fact,
because the current leadership is actually doing and accomplishing
things.  As I stated in my original email (agreeing with your own view
that this isn't that big an issue): what was the hurry to get an
announcement/decision made without even a valid alternative in place?
In other words, there was a policy "decision" without a clear
established way to not violate it (yes, the mplayer/ffmpeg maintainers
did whatever it is they did to comply, I know that, but it's not a
generalisable solution).

So, being that this situation is *not* that big, couldn't it just have
waited for all the council members to get together and have opportunity
to really propose and establish a viable alternative?

If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this
required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council
meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less
of a hub-bub about it.  But, come on, this is a 3-package issue.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]