List Archive: gentoo-project
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
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
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".
email@example.com mailing list