| 1 |
On 08/15/2013 04:56 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14 August 2013 21:41, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>>>>>>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general |
| 7 |
>>>>>>>> progress in gentoo. |
| 8 |
>>>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>>>> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works |
| 10 |
>>>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>>> You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that |
| 12 |
>>>>>> question... |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>> Well no |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> exactly |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> Stop it. Now. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> gentoo-dev is a list for technical topics, so please take your |
| 21 |
>>> personal quarrels elsewhere. |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> Ulrich |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> Why don't you respond to my technical points then? PMS is blocking |
| 28 |
>> progress, again, because it does not reflect reality. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> I don't even see a reason why we should keep up that effort. |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Because if you want to allow multiple package managers as an option, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
If - but why would we do that? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> then you need to have a clearly defined spec for them. The fact that |
| 38 |
> portage implemented something |
| 39 |
> that is not part of PMS, is not a PMS problem. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It is a problem in the cases where portage had a feature *before* PMS |
| 42 |
was defined, and then PMS tries to ignore it (see my last mail) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
It is a problem when PMS does not define the configuration, so two |
| 45 |
PMS-compatible programs can arrive at opposite results for any operation. |
| 46 |
(Why does PMS not define config? Well, then paludis would have a problem) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> So unless it becomes |
| 49 |
> part of PMS, it can't be used in places where you expect PMS |
| 50 |
> compliance. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Unless PMS reflects reality it serves no purpose but ego stroking and |
| 53 |
supressing deviant ideas that some people call "progress" |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> If you want PMS to go away, and call portage the one-and-true PM for |
| 56 |
> Gentoo, then it's probably something for the Council to decide. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
De facto it is like that - if it doesn't work with portage it gets |
| 59 |
fixed, masked and/or removed. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Using anything else might work, or not, but it also removes you from |
| 62 |
support (e.g. #gentoo, bugs.gentoo.org (any maintainer is free to ignore |
| 63 |
or RESO INVA bugs that are not filed with portage) and so on) |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Claiming that the absence of a written policy invalidates reality is a |
| 66 |
rather amusing theory that makes little sense. |
Archives