1 |
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 07:17 +0000, Steve Long wrote: |
2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:31:38 +0000 |
5 |
> > Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
6 |
> >> I agree that the EAPI is not fixed until it's agreed and implemented |
7 |
> >> by portage. The PMS thing seems extraneous to Gentoo needs atm; it's |
8 |
> >> more to enable other projects to interoperate with the tree. It |
9 |
> >> certainly wasn't needed for pkgcore imo. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Erm. You need to learn the relationship between EAPI and PMS. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > PMS describes EAPIs 0 and 1, and will describe any future EAPIs once |
14 |
> > they're agreed upon. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> It does a bit more than that. And like I said, that's extraneous to Gentoo |
17 |
> needs, and is in fact only really needed for Paludis, not pkgcore and |
18 |
> certainly not portage development. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> The last Council made that clear when they took the PMS in-house due to the |
21 |
> lack of progress: |
22 |
> <wolf31o2|work> Gentoo has no need for a PMS if we're only supporting |
23 |
> portage... it was written pretty much exclusively to allow external package |
24 |
> managers to be on the same page as portage |
25 |
> <kingtaco|work> it's possible that any PMS is of primary use for external |
26 |
> projects and perhaps we don't need to involve ourselves |
27 |
> <robbat2> i see the goal of PMS as allowing external PMs to be supported in |
28 |
> Gentoo |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
Well, you've awakened me with this. I must have missed that exchange, |
32 |
but that's silly. PMS is a specification and is useful for anyone who |
33 |
works with packages, regardless of package manager. Or for any new |
34 |
portage developers for that matter. It's easier for everyone if the |
35 |
behavior of any package manager you choose (portage or pkgcore or |
36 |
paludis or ...) is defined by a specification rather than by just what |
37 |
the code does. |
38 |
|
39 |
> I wonder how far you'd get with trying to, say, supplant rpm in RedHat, or |
40 |
> apt in debian. Surely they must be crying out for a next-gen PM? Oh yeah, |
41 |
> you need the Gentoo devs to maintain ebuilds or paludis won't work. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> <kingtaco|work> no, the discussion on -dev ml defines eapi bumps |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Having a spec isn't an issue: the issue is having it developed as a |
46 |
> mainstream Gentoo project, with open discussion. Frankly you're not very |
47 |
> good at that, in so far as your manner does not invite discussion; you've |
48 |
> made it quite clear that you think many of the devs (whose work your |
49 |
> project relies on), let alone the users, are "idiots". |
50 |
> |
51 |
I don't know that it matters where it comes from; what matters is that |
52 |
it is correct. I understand that this statement probably puts me on the |
53 |
fringe. |
54 |
|
55 |
Regards, |
56 |
Ferris |
57 |
-- |
58 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
59 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel) |