Hi Ulm!

El 14/04/18 a las 07:59, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
>> Taking into account that the letter and not the spirit of GLEP 39 is
>> usually thrown around as a weapon ("INFORMATIVE", HAH!). I strongly
>> disrecommend having more "informative" policies.
> Sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about. GLEP types
> are defined in GLEP 1 [1]:
>
> ,----
> | A Standards Track GLEP describes a new feature or implementation
> | for Gentoo Linux. An Informational GLEP provides general guidelines
> | or information to the Gentoo Linux community, but does not propose
> | a new feature.
> `----
>
> Micha³'s GLEP doesn't describe any new feature, but aims to document
> current practice. Therefore it cannot be of type "Standards 

You are deviating the topic here. Informative GLEPs:
* Are enforced.
* Are accepted as a valid argument without trying to check whether their
contents still apply (and no that doesn't mean that it is not marked as
Replaced, Moribund or Deferred, it means that their contents are actual
and relevant).

If you want to document the current lifecycle of Gentoo Developers it's
a better idea to, for example, go and update the Developer Handbook
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel/Developer_Handbook Because
anything that is stated in a GLEP will be enforced even if said GLEP is
"informative".

>> As a closing note, I'm really getting tired of all this "Either you
>> write ebuilds or you are a piece of shit" philosophy that is running
>> on the ambient nowadays. If such people want a developer centric
>> source based distro, who gives shit about the non developers I
>> strongly recommend trying Exherbo instead.
> This is not helpful.

Having second class contributors isn't either and that is exactly what
this GLEP proposes.

Klondike