On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:43:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:29:39 +0200
> Christian Faulhammer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Which groups who would like to be able to contribute currently feel
> > > that they can't, why do they feel that and why haven't they said so?
> > For example people from the other package managers apart from
> > Paludis.
> Zac's said he's not particularly interested in the deciding upon new
> features part, and despite that there was considerable Portage
> influence upon all three new EAPIs. The Pkgcore people haven't tried
> pushing for anything as far as I know. The option's there for them, but
> they haven't expressed any interest.
Actually pkgcore folk have pushed for stuff. mtime preservation is a
simple example of things I've pushed for- at the time implemented by
portage/pkgcore, eliminates the orphan potential for .pyc and other
generated files (iow, very useful). My personal opinion on what goes
into PMS is that it's typically only stuff that paludis supports
already (or is a direction paludis wants to go towards). Could be
wrong, but that's my opinion of it via watching/involvement in it from
it's public inception.
In terms of involvement in PMS, frankly it's not worth it from where
I'm sitting due to ciarans behaviour. Simplest explanation possible
there is that w/ ciaran being effectively the loudest voice PMS wise,
combined w/ behaviour involving sitting on bugs in competing managers
(including instances where that manager isn't compliant w/ PMS) and
popping them out at random times on the ML to rip on the manager,
it's not worth dealing with it.
It's not a matter of having thicker skin- it's literally a question of
worth. Is it worth trying to have a voice if it means exposing
yourself to BS behaviour? Via that line of thought y'all should be
able to understand my personal choice involvement wise.
It's basically a happier existance to just implement the spec, and
keep the head down ;)
My two cents on it, for what it's worth.