1 |
El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
2 |
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200 |
3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago, |
5 |
> > you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and |
6 |
> > more work to delay things to be implemented. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I still haven't seen a clear description of exactly what should be |
9 |
> changed and why. I've also not seen a description of exactly what |
10 |
> problem is being solved, nor a discussion of the relative merits of |
11 |
> implementing a solution to whatever that problem is. All I've seen is a |
12 |
> mess of code that "gets it working" in Portage (which isn't the same as |
13 |
> "implements it for Portage") and a big wall of text that contains lots |
14 |
> that no-one needs to know and little of what's important. This needs to |
15 |
> go through the GLEP process, and it needs a PMS diff. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was |
18 |
> done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really |
19 |
> thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work... |
20 |
> |
21 |
|
22 |
Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer |
23 |
EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't |
24 |
know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need also a GLEP |
25 |
and a PMS diff, also the needing to get an implementation for any |
26 |
package manager). Is this documented in some place? If not, I think it |
27 |
should be documented and, of course, it should be done by PMS team if |
28 |
possible as they clearly know what they expect to get for approval if |
29 |
needed since, I discussed some days ago, council will simply accept some |
30 |
specific features to be included in next eapi once they are accepted by |
31 |
PMS team. That way, we could save a lot of time, know what steps are |
32 |
pending, try to ask for help for some specific steps and, finally, get |
33 |
it discussed in PMS people providing all what is needed. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
> > I also don't understand why Gentoo is forced to stick with old ways |
37 |
> > of doing things until new EAPI is approved |
38 |
> |
39 |
> That's not what's going on here. The issue is that there might be one |
40 |
> person who understands what "the new way of doing things", but he |
41 |
> hasn't told us what he thinks that is. Once we get a proper |
42 |
> explanation, getting an EAPI out doesn't take long. |
43 |
> |
44 |
|
45 |
But you must confess that old problems like multilib support, force |
46 |
package rebuilding or optional dep support are still pending while still |
47 |
needing and, the problem with the way things are discussed now is that |
48 |
some day anybody arises the problem again, other one demands more things |
49 |
to be provided, a discussion starts, the problem gets stalled... one |
50 |
year later the same problem arises again. There is clearly a lack of |
51 |
information to the rest of developers about how to propose anything to |
52 |
get accepted for next EAPI. |
53 |
|
54 |
> The main problem here isn't even EAPI related. Ebuild developers don't |
55 |
> even know what they'll be expected, required or able to do for multilib. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> > while Exherbo is free to implement and use things like that special |
58 |
> > way of handling DEPENDENCIES without waiting for any EAPI to be |
59 |
> > accepted... |
60 |
> |
61 |
> The DEPENDENCIES proposal predates Exherbo. Gentoo originally didn't |
62 |
> have it because Portage couldn't implement it. Now it doesn't have it |
63 |
> because it's too controversial to get it approved. |
64 |
|
65 |
It was only a example, but thanks for the info :) |
66 |
|
67 |
> Exherbo does have it |
68 |
> because it was carefully discussed, compared to alternatives, planned |
69 |
> out, tested, accepted by the expendable figurehead, and then rolled out. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> > or maybe I am wrong and people is able to use any PM manager |
72 |
> > compliant with EAPI on exherbo without issues? |
73 |
> |
74 |
> If anyone ever manages to come up with another package mangler that can |
75 |
> get close to implementing what Exherbo needs, then sure. |
76 |
> |
77 |
|
78 |
Then, you accept exherbo is not forced to *only* follow EAPI while you |
79 |
force Gentoo and portage to only support features approved in an EAPI? |