On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:42:09PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 30 marca 2018 11:01:33 CEST, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > >On 03/30/2018 01:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >> Dnia 30 marca 2018 09:07:03 CEST, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> > >napisał(a): > >>> On 03/29/2018 10:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>>> Dnia 30 marca 2018 06:30:14 CEST, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> > >>> napisał(a): > >>>>> commit: 3f04d4d93d00afa5242a0c9459487c9eea7e9a6f > >>>>> Author: Zac Medico <zmedico <AT> gentoo <DOT> org> > >>>>> AuthorDate: Fri Mar 30 04:18:05 2018 +0000 > >>>>> Commit: Zac Medico <zmedico <AT> gentoo <DOT> org> > >>>>> CommitDate: Fri Mar 30 04:30:05 2018 +0000 > >>>>> URL: > >>>>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3f04d4d9 > >>>>> > >>>>> app-portage/repoman: version bump to 2.3.8 > >>>>> > >>>>> This release adds support for plugin module systems. > >>>>> > >>>>> See: > >>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Repoman-Module-specs > >>>>> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.27_p1, Repoman-2.3.8 > >>>> > >>>> Please revert this immediately. This was never finished, had open > >>> concerns that were never addressed and the added Gentoo repository > >>> files were never subject to proper RFC/review that was requested. > >>> > >>> I've disabled this feature by default, and hidden it behind an > >>> --experimental-repository-modules=<y|n> option. > >> > >> That isn't going to work for me. Given that the yml files were added > >to repository without prior discussion, and contrary to the promises > >given by Portage team such discussion hasn't been started before > >merging the changes to master, I'd like to request removing all those > >files and not reintroducing them until Portage team specifies their > >format and brings it to open discussion. > > > >Yeah I agree that the format really needs a proper specification. I've > >gone ahead and removed them: > > > >https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=f62e76a1e0202dcf55faa2b0fd9b21a1cd184dc8 > > Thanks. I hope this will let us start with a clean slate towards making a > good format.
If there is some distro policy that this repoman enhancement violated, that's fine and I would like to know about it, but I'm not aware of it. If there isn't, as far as I know, there is no reason for it to be blocked. Thanks, William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
