| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> | Are you really saying that you won't be releasing this information |
| 3 |
> | until such time as *Paludis* meets it, even though portage/pkgcore |
| 4 |
> | may not? Isn't the *point* of this spec to try to bring everyone on |
| 5 |
> | the same page? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the |
| 8 |
> specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should happen will |
| 11 |
have loads of errors? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the |
| 14 |
> principal difference between, say, Open Document Format and Office Open |
| 15 |
> XML -- the former is a real standard, whereas the latter is a |
| 16 |
> description of how one program operates. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Now, if PMS happens to end up being ready before Paludis 1.0, PMS will |
| 19 |
> get released before then. But if Paludis 1.0 ends up being ready before |
| 20 |
> PMS, my and probably others' priorities will switch to getting PMS |
| 21 |
> ready as quickly as sanely possible. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
Clearly you are more concerned about getting Paludis ready. spb has other |
| 24 |
priorities, fair enough, but this is something that seems fairly important |
| 25 |
for gentoo as a whole. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it isn't a |
| 28 |
pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communicate with ferringb), a portage |
| 29 |
dev such as zmedico, yourself from paludis and say antarus from |
| 30 |
treecleaners. I'd add in someone like jakub or spanky from bug wranglers |
| 31 |
and Gianelloni for the infrastructure. Having it all from one set of devs |
| 32 |
(paludis) is like having w3c standards written by one company. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives