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.

> > 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