On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 13 March 2012 10:14, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, James Broadhead wrote: >>> >>>> I'm sure that it's been considered already, but what are the arguments >>>> against embedding the EAPI on a per-package (default) or per-version >>>> basis in metadata.xml. It IS metadata after all. >>> >>> You can find a recent discussion in bug 402167, comment #4 and >>> following. <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402167#c4> >> >> I note that there is a link to the council minutes, with the reason >> for voting "no" against GLEP55 being "it has issues that are >> unsolved", but I don't see any reference to said issues. >> >> Is the actual IRC transcript available? Because I'd hate for this >> decision to have been made on the assumption of issues which didn't >> really exist. > > The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from > going to the council again (decisions are not forever.) > Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not > allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different issue > ;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why it was > turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100823.txt
