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 1KIokh-0007VA-0j for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:55:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 885F3E05EC; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:55:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shadow.wildlava.net (shadow.wildlava.net [67.40.138.81]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BC9E05EC for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:55:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.202.1.50] (vnac2.netmgmt.swri.edu [129.162.228.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shadow.wildlava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2EE88F3B2 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:55:47 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <487CE4A4.3030001@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:55:48 -0500 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 July 2008 References: <20080713071118.GC1891@comet> <20080713235255.0e2b7f8e@googlemail.com> <20080714002117.731f1408@googlemail.com> <487CC909.6040109@gentoo.org> <20080715171152.4ffb64b9@snowcone> <487CCD6A.4030804@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <487CCD6A.4030804@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 151a8278-ad56-4ea3-b973-996ec26f667c X-Archives-Hash: d5edda5cd2b07e226f9063d07b49f245 Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: > I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or hav= e=20 > other official package managers approved before accepting the GLEP. In addition, I'd want to see why the particular approach suggested in thi= s GELP is the "only" way (as some seem to claim). I have yet to be convinc= ed of this, and as I've pointed out before (and do not wish to belabor further here), I believe there are major drawbacks to putting the EAPI in the filename/extension. Rushing to approve this GLEP would be a mistake, IMH= O. -Joe --=20 gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list