Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:49:21
Message-Id: 20120623114432.3e40b26c@googlemail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5 by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
> 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't > endear you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject > an argument simply because it comes from you.
Perhaps Gentoo should be doing more to correct the attitudes of those developers, then.
> 2) PMS is supposed to be about specifying things well enough that all > three PMs can implement compatible ebuild/eclass/etc interpretation > and execution.
Not exactly. It's about making sure ebuild developers know what they can rely upon from a package mangler.
> 3) Given the above, it would be of /great/ benefit to your argument > if either Zac or Brian (or preferably both) stepped up from time to > time and said yes, this is really an issue.
They already have. For example: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml
> And if you /can/ get those statements, why are we still going round > and round with all this?
That's a very good question. Why are people still blaming the PMS team for the lack of magical appearance of flying unicorns rather than making their case for the introduction of a horse? -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>