| 1 |
On 06/24/2013 12:59 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/23/2013 05:28 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
> > @dberkholz |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > From your manifesto: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> >> I continue to believe that technical advances are, and should be, |
| 8 |
> >> driven by individuals. Given our volunteer culture, a council can't |
| 9 |
> >> force people to do things they don't want to do, but it can help |
| 10 |
> >> to break up disputes and roadblocks, and make global decisions when |
| 11 |
> >> needed. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > Do you think that gentoo is consistent in it's behavior? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > Should the council step in without any1 asking them if there are |
| 16 |
> > changes about to happen that are a) global and b) highly controversial |
| 17 |
> > discussed? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > As an example: multilib. The council was not involved in that decision |
| 20 |
> > between eclass vs multilib-portage. Since any1 is allowed to add |
| 21 |
> > eclasses to the tree the decision was somehow implicit, without any |
| 22 |
> > real consensus on what the course should be. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> - From http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/ : |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> "Before committing a new eclass to the tree, it should be emailed to the |
| 29 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list with a justification and a proposed |
| 30 |
> implementation. Do not skip this step — sometimes a better |
| 31 |
> implementation or an alternative which does not require a new eclass |
| 32 |
> will be suggested." |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> The dev manual doesn't believe this is implicit nor without any |
| 35 |
> consensus. True, it doesn't ban you from adding a new eclass, but it |
| 36 |
> doesn't say you can just go and randomly add new eclasses without |
| 37 |
> discussion either. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> -Zero |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I know the devmanual quite well. The example in it's procedure was a bit |
| 43 |
more complex than you are describing, so I don't see how that adds anything. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
People agreed that the eclass is fine, but there was no real consensus |
| 46 |
about the question whether we actually want an eclass based solution. |
| 47 |
You can't have both, because it does not make sense. At one point you |
| 48 |
have to decide, council did nothing to aid in this heated (really |
| 49 |
heated) discussion. |
Archives