Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: antarus <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:36:23
Message-Id: 45DD2B0F.2050405@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) by Steve Long
1 >>
2 > Clearly you are more concerned about getting Paludis ready. spb has other
3 > priorities, fair enough, but this is something that seems fairly important
4 > for gentoo as a whole.
5 >
6 > In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it isn't a
7 > pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communicate with ferringb), a portage
8 > dev such as zmedico, yourself from paludis and say antarus from
9 > treecleaners. I'd add in someone like jakub or spanky from bug wranglers
10 > and Gianelloni for the infrastructure. Having it all from one set of devs
11 > (paludis) is like having w3c standards written by one company.
12 >
13 >
14 >
15 While treecleaners really doesn't have anything to do with PMS; I am a
16 portage dev. However I'm not really interested in writing the spec
17 itself; I plan on looking at it when it is closer to completion. I
18 don't claim to have the requisite bash or ebuild magic to author this
19 document (nor do I really care about certain aspects of PMS).
20
21 I'm more concerned about people changing the tree for paludis
22 compatability; but in most of the cases I've seen the changes requested
23 seemed reasonable to me.
24
25 I think the whole deal is blown out of proportion, mostly because many
26 people dislike Ciaran, and unfortunately Ciaran dislikes (or distrusts,
27 may be a better word) many other people (myself and Brian Harring
28 included). If the aim is to get everyone to work together to make a big
29 happy spec; I just don't see it happening (the teams really don't get
30 along well when discussing technical issues). The only potential issue
31 is that PMS comes out and the aforementioned 'meddlers' make their
32 statements and it is a situation that is beyond reconcilliation. You've
33 basically written a PMS that may never get approved just because we will
34 never agree on a standard anyway (due to specific differences in how we
35 view a PM working).
36
37 In essence, delaying all the confrontation to the end. Which is cool
38 with me; tbh ;)
39 --
40 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies