On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 07:17 +0000, Steve Long wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:31:38 +0000
> > Steve Long <slong@...> wrote:
> >> I agree that the EAPI is not fixed until it's agreed and implemented
> >> by portage. The PMS thing seems extraneous to Gentoo needs atm; it's
> >> more to enable other projects to interoperate with the tree. It
> >> certainly wasn't needed for pkgcore imo.
> > Erm. You need to learn the relationship between EAPI and PMS.
> > PMS describes EAPIs 0 and 1, and will describe any future EAPIs once
> > they're agreed upon.
> It does a bit more than that. 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.
> The last Council made that clear when they took the PMS in-house due to the
> lack of progress:
> <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
> <kingtaco|work> it's possible that any PMS is of primary use for external
> projects and perhaps we don't need to involve ourselves
> <robbat2> i see the goal of PMS as allowing external PMs to be supported in
Well, you've awakened me with this. I must have missed that exchange,
but that's silly. PMS is a specification and is useful for anyone who
works with packages, regardless of package manager. Or for any new
portage developers for that matter. It's easier for everyone if the
behavior of any package manager you choose (portage or pkgcore or
paludis or ...) is defined by a specification rather than by just what
the code does.
> 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? Oh yeah,
> you need the Gentoo devs to maintain ebuilds or paludis won't work.
> <kingtaco|work> no, the discussion on -dev ml defines eapi bumps
> Having a spec isn't an issue: the issue is having it developed as a
> mainstream Gentoo project, with open discussion. Frankly you're not very
> good at that, in so far as your manner does not invite discussion; you've
> made it quite clear that you think many of the devs (whose work your
> project relies on), let alone the users, are "idiots".
I don't know that it matters where it comes from; what matters is that
it is correct. I understand that this statement probably puts me on the
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel)