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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G7K5f-0005Bz-PP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:48:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k6UMm62W010024; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:48:06 GMT Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (lennier.cc.vt.edu [198.82.162.213]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6UMjT2F031939 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:45:30 GMT Received: from vivi.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@evil-vivi.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.12]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6UMdDlc000864 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:45:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (blacksburg-bsr1-69-170-32-128.chvlva.adelphia.net [69.170.32.128]) by vivi.cc.vt.edu (MOS 3.8.0-FCS) with ESMTP id FWM93521 (AUTH spbecker); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44CD3718.4050504@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:47:52 -0400 From: "Stephen P. Becker" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060729) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed References: <44C93C77.6070605@gentoo.org> <200607301754.21947.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200607301754.21947.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 41429bf8-5c5c-4b73-ac74-78beb66c77f2 X-Archives-Hash: f79a9ed4cc6daab376f06b12f111e4d4 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 27 July 2006 18:21, Stephen P. Becker wrote: >> Looking at the meeting log, the >> council even noted that the concerns had not been addressed > > no, we noted that people claimed they had concerns but when cornered and asked > what exactly their concerns were, no more responses were to be had > > people need to bring up their outstanding issues now and get them addressed Ok, since the first time around apparently wasn't good enough, how about this? This project sucks. It takes random ebuilds without enough merit or demand to even have some team and/or developer within Gentoo pick it up, and dumps it to a user-supported-yet-completely-official-break-my-gentoo-style tree that has to potential to cause all sorts of QA problems. It flies right in the face of those of us that have strived to educate users not to rice out their systems with outside-the-tree ebuilds that have not gone through some sort of arch team and/or maintainer QA before hitting the tree. There is nothing you or anyone else can say that will make me think otherwise, and I think it needs to be killed. Now. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list