1 |
On 06/21/12 15:25, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
2 |
> El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
3 |
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200 |
4 |
>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago, |
6 |
>>> you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and |
7 |
>>> more work to delay things to be implemented. |
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 |
> Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer |
22 |
> EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't |
23 |
> know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need also a GLEP |
24 |
> and a PMS diff, also the needing to get an implementation for any |
25 |
> package manager). Is this documented in some place? |
26 |
No, and this is a rather random ad-hoc requirement that hasn't been |
27 |
specified before. |
28 |
|
29 |
All previous EAPI processes went through some debate with dev-portage@ |
30 |
and the other involved people (mostly pkgcore/ferringb and |
31 |
paludis/ciaranm), then the proposal got handed to council to vote on, |
32 |
and if council was happy that proposal was hammered into PMS and the new |
33 |
EAPI published. Most of the time new features had a crude approximation |
34 |
of a patch for PMS available so that the documentation updates were done |
35 |
in a timely manner. |
36 |
|
37 |
I have no idea why Ciaran is trying to redefine the process now suddenly |
38 |
and why people are taking this nonsense seriously. |
39 |
|
40 |
> If not, I think it |
41 |
> should be documented and, of course, it should be done by PMS team if |
42 |
> possible as they clearly know what they expect to get for approval if |
43 |
> needed since, I discussed some days ago, council will simply accept some |
44 |
> specific features to be included in next eapi once they are accepted by |
45 |
> PMS team. That way, we could save a lot of time, know what steps are |
46 |
> pending, try to ask for help for some specific steps and, finally, get |
47 |
> it discussed in PMS people providing all what is needed. |
48 |
I would say PMS team accepts what council signs off ... or am I seeing |
49 |
the order wrong here? |
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
So, the normal way to get a feature into the next EAPI is ... write a |
53 |
specification to the best of your capabilities, present it here, when |
54 |
people are done bashing it ask PMS people to help you prepare a PMS |
55 |
patch so that you can suggest it to Council, and then it's mostly a |
56 |
matter of waiting until the next EAPI is finalized (which currently runs |
57 |
at a glacial pace of about one EAPI a year as far as I remember) |
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
Take care, |
61 |
|
62 |
Patrick |