Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: PMS
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:27:41
Message-Id: 20071217072657.6e35c722@blueyonder.co.uk
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: PMS by Steve Long
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:17:32 +0000
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > PMS describes EAPIs 0 and 1, and will describe any future EAPIs once > > they're agreed upon. > > > It does a bit more than that.
Mmmm, nope. Unless you mean "has an introduction page"...
> And like I said, that's extraneous to Gentoo needs, and is in fact > only really needed for Paludis, not pkgcore and certainly not portage > development.
It's entirely needed for Portage development. Without PMS, no change to Portage is allowed to break any existing ebuild, no matter how stupid what that ebuild is doing.
> The last Council made that clear when they took the PMS in-house due > to the lack of progress:
Which is kind of weird, given that there's plenty of progress... Also kind of weird that no-one in said Council or anywhere else has bothered to tell me about this in-house copy of the repository...
> <wolf31o2|work> Gentoo has no need for a PMS if we're only supporting > portage... it was written pretty much exclusively to allow external > package managers to be on the same page as portage
Untrue.
> <kingtaco|work> it's possible that any PMS is of primary use for > external projects and perhaps we don't need to involve ourselves
Possible. Not true.
> <robbat2> i see the goal of PMS as allowing external PMs to be > supported in Gentoo
Partially true, in that it's one of the goals.
> I wonder how far you'd get with trying to, say, supplant rpm in > RedHat, or apt in debian. Surely they must be crying out for a > next-gen PM?
You mean "I wonder how far you'd get with trying to, say, supplant dselect in debian". Oh, right. You'll note that RPM and APT have proper specifications, and aren't defined in terms of any particular implementation.
> Oh yeah, you need the Gentoo devs to maintain ebuilds or > paludis won't work.
Which has what to do with anything? (It's also untrue, but hey, that's a separate issue.)
> <kingtaco|work> no, the discussion on -dev ml defines eapi bumps
You're taking things out of context. Discussion on -dev (or rather, bugzilla) is used to decide what goes in an EAPI. The EAPI itself is described formally elsewhere.
> Having a spec isn't an issue: the issue is having it developed as a > mainstream Gentoo project, with open discussion.
Anyone who knows what they're talking about is more than welcome to discuss things. Anyone who doesn't, which clearly includes you at this point, is more than welcome to go and do the necessary research. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature