From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K6hzS-0001Cf-3E for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:17:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C465E03A3; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.171]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F935E03A3 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z27so294122ugc.49 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=6x7qMUq0zy8cdm+02UobXmpsCOgrtCsmMAeeRQ81aOE=; b=VL6fFqHwbz1VkOc6YcJISEoNf4fswMZyOYMEH8CbLf82P83JqEWZ0qf3p70ZMz/IJv FUYqBK896Odo+CHVef0jSfXFV8iH+BHiHZU1gPXvUFCqC/q+fUu7jibKxEVeMc8n9E8R vWR3AEA+VLvXcXC7OoNoLYAiTUuAKWAuNCa24= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=NwyXJ+gm6N87HNSxZctnmAYZI5APBjYXvYuWyQizZcnG2hUSV5hzu4UP9TmXVeZCqn kgo8UqiUXU0b++UBcC/rUR9anZElhiQblKTch3E7FvdWyLBCAt+AO0ju/cLoxJ1TG17m 1/4BNd9jQBFWcPO3OufaQrLP3eyrmGfI+q9w0= Received: by 10.66.243.2 with SMTP id q2mr2156890ugh.60.1213258618873; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ( [213.121.151.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e34sm6591710ugd.38.2008.06.12.01.16.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:16:51 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June] Message-ID: <20080612091651.1cec6558@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4850DA7F.7030406@gentoo.org> References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080611215827.GB7074@comet> <20080612084128.7221bb09@googlemail.com> <4850D5AD.2090108@gentoo.org> <20080612090136.43f0beac@googlemail.com> <4850DA7F.7030406@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/wUHW3tGlS/kWV_tO0R.=_YY"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 6fd46b28-f36d-4213-b84f-8549afb90ea8 X-Archives-Hash: dd537f30ad0e954a64cd2551b90b71c8 --Sig_/wUHW3tGlS/kWV_tO0R.=_YY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before > > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If > > package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible > > thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. >=20 > Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are=20 > complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/wUHW3tGlS/kWV_tO0R.=_YY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkhQ23cACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG9lACg1xmLpV3M/drIIHIYzQ15z4lo c+IAoNywoIxrKHr9mICxbdt55odpdVj/ =a/Kr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/wUHW3tGlS/kWV_tO0R.=_YY-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list