| 1 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:56:39 -0700 |
| 2 |
Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Could the both of you please flesh out a proposal on how you'd expect |
| 4 |
> the council to solve these issues? It would best if, on top of telling |
| 5 |
> what should be done, you explained why it should be done this way. |
| 6 |
> Raising the questions is already interesting but proposing answers is |
| 7 |
> even better. You may have done that elsewhere before but summarizing |
| 8 |
> it here would help tremendously. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Ok. For this: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > "Agree upon a wording for PMS for the mtime modification change |
| 13 |
> > introduced to EAPI 3 last time" |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I honestly don't have an answer to this, nor a preferred solution. So |
| 16 |
far as I can see, any possible solution is hit by one of: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
* requiring changes to Portage. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
* preventing future changes to Portage that would clearly be useful |
| 21 |
(for example, shebang rewriting for Prefix). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
* being so vague and unspecific that it is entirely legal for package |
| 24 |
managers not to implement mtime preservation at all. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Obviously the Council had something else in mind when they voted the |
| 27 |
proposal in, but the combined wisdom of the PMS team hasn't managed to |
| 28 |
work out what that is. Thus, I'd like the Council to explain their |
| 29 |
decision in sufficiently precise language that I can convert it to |
| 30 |
LaTeX for PMS, and implement it in Paludis. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> > I'd like council to discuss what I consider a major bug in PMS - |
| 33 |
> > see the discussion at |
| 34 |
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/msg_95a13d880eb521b13d7090f30350c26a.xml |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
As for this one, I was hoping Patrick would, as asked, start a |
| 37 |
discussion on the gentoo-dev list regarding backwards compatibility and |
| 38 |
how much developers care about having a clean upgrade path. I gather |
| 39 |
from the previous Council meeting and from other comments that at least |
| 40 |
some developers consider not being able to upgrade from an older Gentoo |
| 41 |
install as being a problem. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
The question, really, is whether there not being an upgrade path is |
| 44 |
deliberate, or whether it's an accident that needs fixing. I don't |
| 45 |
think that's a decision that should be made without a general |
| 46 |
discussion amongst all Gentoo developers, and I certainly don't think |
| 47 |
it's a decision that should be made arbitrarily by the PMS editors. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives