| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:13:59 -0400 |
| 2 |
Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I think it's clear at this point that Ciaran was the wrong person to |
| 4 |
> have in charge of the PMS or EAPI spec's despite his willingness to do |
| 5 |
> the work.. I tried to talk to him about having Paludis support an |
| 6 |
> extension of PMS which Portage already supported. His response was to |
| 7 |
> DEMAND that portage change his behavior and throw warnings about this |
| 8 |
> because it wasn't in the PMS (which I will note is an accurately |
| 9 |
> acronym'd document). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> ttp://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
...and then for the feature to be introduced properly, in a controlled |
| 14 |
manner, yes. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> The users simply don't care about this stuff, and throwing warnings at |
| 17 |
> every user in the manner advocated is abuse. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The warnings don't make it to the user. The warnings make sure |
| 20 |
developers catch the problem and fix it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> This sort of behavior simply needs to stop. Using bugs.gentoo.org to |
| 23 |
> attack Funtoo, which utilizes Portage, in the manner which has been |
| 24 |
> done usurps the Gentoo Council's authority, the Portage devs, Funtoo, |
| 25 |
> and most importantly our ability to innovate. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Funtoo can do whatever it wants. There are plenty of ways for it to do |
| 28 |
that. One way might be for Funtoo to make its own EAPI including the |
| 29 |
extensions it needs, and get Portage to support that. Unfortunately, |
| 30 |
your incorrect belief that EAPIs had nothing to do with Portage when |
| 31 |
this came up prevented you from considering that solution. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> And hell, if we're not going to innovate, lets all please pack up and |
| 34 |
> go home. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I look forward to seeing Funtoo's creation of EAPI funtoo-2. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives