On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@...> 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