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 1K78el-0007KJ-IO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:45:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BEF3E00B5; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E87AE00B5 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D741F66329 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.622 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.977, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 ygUE8iABs8l3 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:46 +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 024D064317 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K78dy-00005P-2x for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:38 +0000 Received: from ip68-231-12-133.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.12.133]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:38 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-12-133.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:38 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June] Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <75f3dce80806121813y5d417574kb7283c285e296562@mail.gmail.com> <20080613062612.46931b33@googlemail.com> <4852375F.7010201@dev.gentooexperimental.org> <7DB0FAE7-6F92-43D5-BB33-0048403A0281@gentoo.org> <48523AEF.2020608@dev.gentooexperimental.org> <20080613102240.4ba5d144@googlemail.com> <8b4c83ad0806130310y71e62485u48baa828e09c4450@mail.gmail.com> <20080613111440.5af5414e@googlemail.com> <8b4c83ad0806130322s560c4fb7u70cd03964108723c@mail.gmail.com> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-12-133.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 42257e9f-55d3-4a44-ae53-51fab0d8e98f X-Archives-Hash: e4e1797f8c23cbbeafada8d5b8da0e5d "Nirbheek Chauhan" posted 8b4c83ad0806130322s560c4fb7u70cd03964108723c@mail.gmail.com, excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530: > Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS > is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of time" o= r > "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis". It shoul= d > follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible. Ciaran's right on this one. It may have been a bug in portage, now=20 fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working=20 PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old=20 release media, however stale it might be. If a current release happens=20 before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate,= =20 but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could= . Additionally, he and Brian both agree (!!) that out-of-tree portage=20 config is outside the PMS domain, so the make.conf example doesn't have=20 anything to do with PMS in any case. Anyway, I agree with Brian in a different subthread post. The council=20 has met and this thread and discussions on it are stale, so best to let=20 it die. I'd have not replied here except after my earlier negative=20 posts, I felt the need to provide some balance, and take the opportunity=20 to point out that here, the Paludis devs are right, both practically=20 (breaking new installs) and theoretically (out of PMS domain). --=20 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 --=20 gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list