Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Cc: ciaranm@××××××××××.com, gentoo-council@l.g.o, gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:00:05
Message-Id: 20091214205817.GF6344@hrair
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales by Mike Frysinger
Pulling the thread back since the next chunk of is is going 
completely cyclical/misdirection if left as is..

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:01:03PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 14 December 2009 10:14:37 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:31:11 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > yet crap that was explicitly never official or in used in the tree > > > you feel you have a right to keep in the PMS. > > > > It was added at the request of the Gentoo KDE team. It wasn't added > > because I wanted it; it was added because Gentoo developers asked for > > it. I realise you like to pretend that the people who asked for it > > never existed, but the fact is they did, and it would be irresponsible > > of Gentoo to make users suffer because of internal politicking. > > great ! so when are you going to add these features that have existed for > years in portage to the PMS ? your logic is complete crap. > > > > it doesnt belong there, it never has, so delete it/branch it already. > > > > You still haven't explained why it's better to delete it now than to do > > a controlled removal that won't affect users. > > and you have yet to show how your PM behavior is relevant one bit to the PMS > here. removing unofficial crap from the PMS has no bearing whatsoever on > ebuilds that require unofficial PMs. keep the crap in your PM forever for all > i care.
The fact Ciaran is explicitly ducking is that pulling KDEBUILD out of PMS in no shape or form actually screws those users. Paludis created the eapi extension for them to use, it's their responsibility for maintaining the env or giving the uesrs a migration path away from it. The responsibility is at the PM level. PMS is irrelevant to that. I seriously doubt any user of KDEBUILD Ciaran is worried about will go looking in PMS for a description of how to get out of that mess... further, I seriously doubt anyone of those users ever looked at KDEBUILD in PMS in the first place- they were consumers at best. Gentoo kde devs may've, but they're not the ones involved in the "oh think of the children!" claims of why the spec must stay in official docs. I already suggested a workable compromise- punt it out of PMS, add a section to PMS of unofficial/experimental eapis w/ urls to those docs/versions of PMS. We get the doc back to official EAPIs and a fair bit easier to edit, Ciaran gets his little hook to quiet him down. Via this, if a dev *really* wanted to track down KDEBUILD and was completely incompetent in their googling skills, they still would find the spec. As for users... no user is going to look at PMS for information on what's going on w/ paludis/KDEBUILD/the gentoo kde overlay. Kindly drop the "think of the children/user" cry- it's not relevant to PMS, only to how paludis maintaing KDEBUILD support. If that's not enough, just leave it to a fricking council vote. Already had a week of this stonewalling, it's wasting folks time (and nerves) dealing w/ it any further. ~harring