On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:16:25 -0700
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote:
>> So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in
>> most cases I would support that assertion)
>> who would fix them?  The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt
>> the council is going to *force* them to accept said
>> patches.  Is QA going to fix these bugs?
>
> If PMS has official standing, the maintainer will.
>

I'm a maintainer and I'll say right out that I won't fix things unless
they make sense to me; regardless of what some council says.  That
being said if people provide patches and/or commit said patches; more
power to them.  My point still stands that you cannot force these
maintainers who disagree with a change to suddenly make them; you
either need to convince them that the changes are correct and proper
or you need to find another willing group to make said changes.

>> > Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage
>> > that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by
>> > PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"...
>>
>> Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break
>> existing packages
>> that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion
>> that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software"
>
> Only in cases where Portage's behaviour is unspecifiable.
>
>> That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt
>> you can compel him to comply with PMS
>> 100% unless this is driven by developers themselves.  He (not unlike
>> me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow.
>
> Please explain how deliberately and knowingly breaking existing ebuilds
> without bothering to work out the consequences, and refusing to fix it
> with the hope that no-one will notice is pragmatic.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
>