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 1HgVz2-0000HH-2X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:07:48 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3P16ifN020471; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:06:44 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 l3P14gJG018126 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:04:42 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.138] (c-66-30-3-184.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [66.30.3.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7636C65235 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:04:41 +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: <1177457492.15811.26.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.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> <1177453288.18325.9.camel@localhost> <1177457492.15811.26.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-CguyQm0B33qO/FQ25K4J" Organization: Gentoo Foundation Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:05:17 -0400 Message-Id: <1177463117.7326.5.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: 036a8b73-7867-42a2-9616-9b3ea7dfc383 X-Archives-Hash: 37974f3818e73657cfc98dbc77c6c482 --=-CguyQm0B33qO/FQ25K4J Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. --=-CguyQm0B33qO/FQ25K4J 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) iD8DBQBGLqlNiUTIoXwgiI0RAsH4AJ45jq5md/oXnEoaCNNjHtih/1JY0wCgzkpO gnEVbuPfZUzUSAy+5rwuV2w= =/W6Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-CguyQm0B33qO/FQ25K4J-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list