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 4.50) id 1EPjci-0002dJ-90 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:38:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9CGSTNu000933; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:28:29 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j9CGQUjV000810 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:26:31 GMT Received: from bmb24.med.uth.tmc.edu ([129.106.207.24] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EPjaN-0007e2-HJ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:36:11 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:36:12 -0500 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th Message-ID: <20051012163612.GC13577@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <434A5FA9.206@gentoo.org> <1128949257.8881.54.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20051011155449.GC8339@gentoo.org> <1129065028.8881.99.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1129065028.8881.99.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: e8efb383-7de9-4e12-9bb3-00b2d668114d X-Archives-Hash: b48bb9e5ea39e4ba0acf8d2d97ef5192 --eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Oct 11 2005, 04:10:28PM CDT] > I think the point is that they should match. It was also quite obvious > after the comments on the thread, that this is one of those things that > probably won't ever be solved by consensus. Is this not the exact thing > that the Council is there to do, to make decisions that we cannot agree > on ourselves? Um, sort of? The council exists mainly to make cross-project decisions. I suppose that this issue counts, since it involves both the baselayout folks and the GDP, but the GDP doesn't really care which logger is installed by virtual/logger, as long as they know when it changes. As such, I would say that it's up to the package maintainers (base-system) to make that decision. Oh, I suppose that if base-system were to choose poorly, and large numbers of devs were upset, then the council would get involved, but this issue just doesn't seem that contentious. I've heard lots of people state that they would rather have logger "foo" as the default, but those same people will just shrug and install their favorite if foo isn't chosen. It's just not that big a deal. If the council chooses to address this issue I'm hardly going to complain, but I don't really think that it's worth their time. -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFDTTt8ptxxUuD2W3YRAtWfAJkBK6qAFGt0YQOQEyA9fRHLoQFZNwCYnulF YvVsOThRaIlgdUsfDauQFg== =fEUZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list