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 1HZPOT-00043I-W9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:40:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l35AdjGQ004834; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:39:45 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 l35AbnXm002576 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:50 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA0A64981 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.955 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.032, TW_SV=0.077] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4usPW4SMZcJf for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A384764BD3 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HZPLU-0000ZP-BH for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:37:36 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-13-122.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.13.122]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:37:36 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-13-122.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:37:36 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20070401092940.1B4C26441E@smtp.gentoo.org> <200704040151.56797.vapier@gentoo.org> <20070405092817.79df34d3@snowflake> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-13-122.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.126 (Demon Sweat) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 47c10216-2e8f-46f4-8403-deac8ee3da2b X-Archives-Hash: 350c1f40a6c35ede60373974587148f6 Ciaran McCreesh posted 20070405092817.79df34d3@snowflake, excerpted below, on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:28:17 +0100: > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400 > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> - PMS: >> - status update from spb >> - moving it to Gentoo svn >> - schedule for getting remaining issues settled > > Same question as last time this came up: > > Can you name any other projects where the Council has become involved in > scheduling issues? If I may... take this as at least certain members of the council agreeing with you that certain package management issues are holding up Gentoo (note, I did NOT say portage, per se, but package management issues in general, I'm deliberately leaving it at that general level). Logically, an agreement on some sort of current base package spec, PMS, is, I believe most will agree, the next big step in resolving that issue. Viewed from that angle, the repeated emphasis on a time-line of sorts (regardless of the word used to communicate the idea), let's say for argument's sake (since I don't know others, but am not at a level to know for sure) uniquely, only underscores the importance the council (or certain members thereof, anyway) is now attaching to the issue. Or are you now arguing that movement on package management is /not/ holding back Gentoo, now? BTW, from my read of the portage-dev list, there are several things there on hold for EAPI-1, as well, and while a full definition of EAPI-0 isn't absolutely necessary before moving on EAPI-1, if it's possible time-wise, it's the most logical and convenient way, so that too is holding on the definition of EAPI-0, meaning all three projects appear to be awaiting it in some form or another, thus making it even /more/ critical timewise, regardless of how things turn out package-manager-wise down the pike. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list