| 1 |
Pulling the thread back since the next chunk of is is going |
| 2 |
completely cyclical/misdirection if left as is.. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:01:03PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> On Monday 14 December 2009 10:14:37 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
> > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:31:11 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > yet crap that was explicitly never official or in used in the tree |
| 9 |
> > > you feel you have a right to keep in the PMS. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > It was added at the request of the Gentoo KDE team. It wasn't added |
| 12 |
> > because I wanted it; it was added because Gentoo developers asked for |
| 13 |
> > it. I realise you like to pretend that the people who asked for it |
| 14 |
> > never existed, but the fact is they did, and it would be irresponsible |
| 15 |
> > of Gentoo to make users suffer because of internal politicking. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> great ! so when are you going to add these features that have existed for |
| 18 |
> years in portage to the PMS ? your logic is complete crap. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > > it doesnt belong there, it never has, so delete it/branch it already. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > You still haven't explained why it's better to delete it now than to do |
| 23 |
> > a controlled removal that won't affect users. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> and you have yet to show how your PM behavior is relevant one bit to the PMS |
| 26 |
> here. removing unofficial crap from the PMS has no bearing whatsoever on |
| 27 |
> ebuilds that require unofficial PMs. keep the crap in your PM forever for all |
| 28 |
> i care. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The fact Ciaran is explicitly ducking is that pulling KDEBUILD out of |
| 31 |
PMS in no shape or form actually screws those users. Paludis created |
| 32 |
the eapi extension for them to use, it's their responsibility for |
| 33 |
maintaining the env or giving the uesrs a migration path away from it. |
| 34 |
The responsibility is at the PM level. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
PMS is irrelevant to that. I seriously doubt any user of KDEBUILD |
| 37 |
Ciaran is worried about will go looking in PMS for a description of |
| 38 |
how to get out of that mess... further, I seriously doubt anyone of |
| 39 |
those users ever looked at KDEBUILD in PMS in the first place- they |
| 40 |
were consumers at best. Gentoo kde devs may've, but they're not the |
| 41 |
ones involved in the "oh think of the children!" claims of why the |
| 42 |
spec must stay in official docs. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I already suggested a workable compromise- punt it out of PMS, add a |
| 45 |
section to PMS of unofficial/experimental eapis w/ urls to those |
| 46 |
docs/versions of PMS. We get the doc back to official EAPIs and a |
| 47 |
fair bit easier to edit, Ciaran gets his little hook to quiet him |
| 48 |
down. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Via this, if a dev *really* wanted to track down KDEBUILD and was |
| 51 |
completely incompetent in their googling skills, they still would find |
| 52 |
the spec. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
As for users... no user is going to look at PMS for information on |
| 55 |
what's going on w/ paludis/KDEBUILD/the gentoo kde overlay. Kindly |
| 56 |
drop the "think of the children/user" cry- it's not relevant to PMS, |
| 57 |
only to how paludis maintaing KDEBUILD support. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
If that's not enough, just leave it to a fricking council vote. |
| 60 |
Already had a week of this stonewalling, it's wasting folks time (and |
| 61 |
nerves) dealing w/ it any further. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
~harring |
Archives