| 1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't |
| 4 |
> endear you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject |
| 5 |
> an argument simply because it comes from you. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Perhaps Gentoo should be doing more to correct the attitudes of those |
| 8 |
developers, then. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> 2) PMS is supposed to be about specifying things well enough that all |
| 11 |
> three PMs can implement compatible ebuild/eclass/etc interpretation |
| 12 |
> and execution. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Not exactly. It's about making sure ebuild developers know what they |
| 15 |
can rely upon from a package mangler. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> 3) Given the above, it would be of /great/ benefit to your argument |
| 18 |
> if either Zac or Brian (or preferably both) stepped up from time to |
| 19 |
> time and said yes, this is really an issue. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
They already have. For example: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> And if you /can/ get those statements, why are we still going round |
| 26 |
> and round with all this? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That's a very good question. Why are people still blaming the PMS team |
| 29 |
for the lack of magical appearance of flying unicorns rather than |
| 30 |
making their case for the introduction of a horse? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives