From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-167704-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165FC139BC6
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 01:28:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2248921C045;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 01:27:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE91421C028
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 01:27:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so45465997igc.1
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=Cs6bcAnYyShc31vxCs54JizqRlIPVbSoqSVQihSDYUY=;
b=NY8auqlOq8LjBNP+KjMor28E1op0WsumxhPkdTOp3HKKYpC7iwitZyp31YXkAqvCLf
Gg9Xpz4J4voAFaabeL+GSqlQm/82GKg0mPAho39hG9oCMKqSNStSD8q2lh32ed2K5nHu
Ujj4iQboZYbxxpac2kwmtYlo9aJyaaCsybmNxP7+YVGxYPGT8qAUtKk3IjcpKI1+mNMC
ZsvrK2YfxDE7z0sJo4OW6uI/hOVt7/jY/a9bgbJeHCcVzk/VogmsktycNN6TaQtT/gJJ
dwv+ydjGw3TSPqEaa1ItpDC7jO7LK4DRzVWJZNH3bjf4n1L7/cdSxVManRSUUhr4A0af
C6fg==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.4.65 with SMTP id i1mr595345igi.0.1443403674443; Sun, 27
Sep 2015 18:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.103.70 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mua1sc$q88$2@ger.gmane.org>
References: <56080616.5090406@gmail.com>
<560826D7.7070307@gentoo.org>
<560844D0.90302@gmail.com>
<56086BED.3070806@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_k1=V28FHYLGy=NO6cVJbtws7VQmvZ8=7hzgam2j4p=GA@mail.gmail.com>
<mua1sc$q88$2@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:27:54 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: SKL3bt3enuquhu7ks0488lLSqmY
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_kFPcvPyX=JfMxpk+9ci=y4GDm1bmiEYLbVD3wokZCjbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: a302af3c-3dee-40af-9b00-0317784993d7
X-Archives-Hash: 6eea23098103d028b64f67c47d75e5cf
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de> wrote:
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> There really wasn't much loud objection when the proposal came up
>> again last week
>
> This does not mean that everybody agreed.
> However, all arguments had been exchanged before,
> so repeating them would just have been pointless:
> Eventually a decision had to be made, and I am confident
> that it was made by the portage team in the full awareness
> of the positive and negative consequences of that decision,
> because all portage developers had participated in the
> previous discussion.
>
>
Sure, but the portage team can really only dictate the upstream
defaults of portage, not tree policy. I don't disagree with them, but
it wouldn't hurt to have the Council or QA weigh in just so that we're
not endlessly bickering about whether it is official or not.
--
Rich