| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 04:13 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> | and Gianelloni for the infrastructure. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package manager |
| 6 |
>> specification? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Especially considering that I am not an infrastructure guy. I'll be |
| 9 |
> honest. I'm not concerned personally with the *contents* of the package |
| 10 |
> manager specification, since I know it will end up being reviewed by |
| 11 |
> many. What I am mostly concerned with is making sure that we're moving |
| 12 |
> forward as efficiently as possible. I want this spec so we can all get |
| 13 |
> cracking on making everything support it. The contents itself I leave |
| 14 |
> to more capable hands. I'll be reviewing it when it is released, but |
| 15 |
> that's only just to assist in the process. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Um I put it badly, sorry (i've had the flu) - I meant Chris in his capacity |
| 18 |
of releng, catalyst etc. You only want to review, np. ++ to moving ahead. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And yeah, ferringb had it right- it was about having several perspectives on |
| 21 |
this rather than just paludis devs. And irrespective of whether |
| 22 |
bug-wranglers have much to say, I'd still want them involved, as they deal |
| 23 |
with the ebuild bugs. As such they could well have ideas or viewpoints |
| 24 |
which would help. Even if they don't, it's how I'd do it for any software |
| 25 |
development project- not having testing/ QA/ bug fixers involved would |
| 26 |
leave me uneasy. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The PMS will presumably be the definitive statement of what should happen |
| 29 |
for *all* gentoo PMs, and it so happens that the people who are doing it |
| 30 |
are mostly paludis devs, and sorry it won't be ready til Paludis is. pfft. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I don't buy the stuff about needing the so-called independent implementation |
| 33 |
sorry. ``What people think is allowed rather than what is?'' The spec |
| 34 |
defines what is allowed. Period. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Further, I don't recollect any discussion about needing an independent |
| 37 |
implementation when this was first mooted, and spb took it on. Or am I |
| 38 |
wrong- was it in fact understood that the spec would need paludis before it |
| 39 |
could be considered correct? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting |
| 42 |
implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Like I said, tho, I'm happy if the council is. Although I'm starting to |
| 45 |
worry at the increasingly poisonous atmosphere, and that devs are leaving. |
| 46 |
Flameeyes was on the council, no? It concerns me that this atmosphere is |
| 47 |
just intimidating people simply because no one feels confident to stand up |
| 48 |
to abusive bullying. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Personally, I'd like to see ferringb and zmedico's take on what the PMS |
| 51 |
should be. (Not that they want to do it.) I sincerely doubt it would take |
| 52 |
them anything like as long ;) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
BTW if i preface a statement with `personally' that means it's just my gut |
| 55 |
feeling. It doesn't mean that I think it /has/ to be done like that. Sorry |
| 56 |
to explain the obvious.. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives