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 1HgWKl-0004xW-Ru for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:30:16 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3P1ScOk029422; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:28:38 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 l3P1PI7G024732 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:25:19 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 147CE64A10 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:25:17 +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: <200704250030.53826.kugelfang@gentoo.org> References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <200704250001.56920.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <1177453288.18325.9.camel@localhost> <200704250030.53826.kugelfang@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-w3RlI+L7zWswlJ7hSJSI" Organization: Gentoo Foundation Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:25:54 -0400 Message-Id: <1177464354.7326.12.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: 2a2f864f-35b3-4f5a-88d0-260bb69f7929 X-Archives-Hash: bc70cff7b6294e073f3c17e414597555 --=-w3RlI+L7zWswlJ7hSJSI Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the=20 > council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here? My argument is not that Council should not care. My question is: what's the big urgency to rush a half-baked policy through? > I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while=20 > the affected parties have no problem with it. I hope you don't mean me here, because I haven't felt attacked at all. My concern isn't a personal one. Rather, it's a question that nobody from the council has actually answered: what was the big hurry to make a decision _NOW_ without even thinking through the migration path, or for that matter without even knowing what is the actual correct way. It's fine to say that _rc_alpha_beta_p is wrong (and I happen to agree). It's another to not say what is actually right. Furthermore, if only 3 packages did the wrong thing where was the emergency? > Anybody who attends the regular Council meetings and/or reads their=20 > logs/summaries knew that this kind of decission is possible. To paraphrase something I've said to people on this list: just because you can does not necessarily mean that you _should_. =20 I probably have more council related commentary, but I'll save that for the appropriate mailing list :) I'm not trying to make you defensive, I just really would like an answer to my question, that is all. Thanks, Seemant --=-w3RlI+L7zWswlJ7hSJSI 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) iD8DBQBGLq4iiUTIoXwgiI0RAjU2AKDHfC1tZF/MUqj3aCO0bHNa1Qz3kwCgz8xn Mi0FrxMPKvdTXnNwiNgz9Xs= =GXer -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-w3RlI+L7zWswlJ7hSJSI-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list