1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:46:32 +0000 |
4 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> The concern I have with this is that PMS as developed by an external |
7 |
>> team is now being seen as authoritative for the whole of Gentoo. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> No version of PMS is authorative until it actually gets approved, and |
10 |
> all existing versions are just drafts. And an approved version would be |
11 |
> a finished document, not a repository, so the location or who works on |
12 |
> it is meaningless in this regard, though it might have an effect on |
13 |
> which versions will eventually get approved. |
14 |
> |
15 |
Ah thanks for the clarification, genone. Makes me feel more relaxed about |
16 |
it, although I note that others are clearly taking the draft as |
17 |
authoritative. I hope there won't be backlash if people start writing |
18 |
ebuilds using new features, only for them not to be approved for the Gentoo |
19 |
PMS. |
20 |
|
21 |
There is no guarantee, aiui, that just because the Paludis guys have |
22 |
designed and implemented something and put it in the draft PMS hosted |
23 |
externally, it will be implemented, either in the same way or at all, in |
24 |
portage and pkgcore. That starts to cause dev mindshare issues, imo, and |
25 |
could lead to further acrimony later on down the line. |
26 |
|
27 |
It will surely lead to more disparaging comments about portage, as we have |
28 |
already seen. Personally I find them annoying simply because portage has |
29 |
built so many Gentoo systems, which we all use out of choice. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |