1 |
Ferris McCormick wrote: |
2 |
> PMS is a specification and is useful for anyone who |
3 |
> works with packages, regardless of package manager. Or for any new |
4 |
> portage developers for that matter. It's easier for everyone if the |
5 |
> behavior of any package manager you choose (portage or pkgcore or |
6 |
> paludis or ...) is defined by a specification rather than by just what |
7 |
> the code does. |
8 |
> |
9 |
I agree 100% that the EAPI ebuild authors can expect should be documented |
10 |
and specified precisely. The concern was over process, as to whether the |
11 |
stance has changed wrt the PMS hosted on Gentoo infra being |
12 |
the "authorised" version. |
13 |
|
14 |
>> Having a spec isn't an issue: the issue is having it developed as a |
15 |
>> mainstream Gentoo project, with open discussion. Frankly you're not very |
16 |
>> good at that, in so far as your manner does not invite discussion; you've |
17 |
>> made it quite clear that you think many of the devs (whose work your |
18 |
>> project relies on), let alone the users, are "idiots". |
19 |
>> |
20 |
> I don't know that it matters where it comes from; what matters is that |
21 |
> it is correct. I understand that this statement probably puts me on the |
22 |
> fringe. |
23 |
> |
24 |
Certainly correctness is vital. Wrt to discussing future changes, the manner |
25 |
in which that is done matters too, imo. |
26 |
|
27 |
As genone pointed out, it won't be authorised until the Council approve it, |
28 |
so my main concern is alleviated. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |