| 1 |
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:42:21 +0000 |
| 2 |
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 5 |
> > While the PMS perhaps hasn't been an unequivocal success, it's |
| 6 |
> > still a good effort with some success. I would be disappointed to |
| 7 |
> > see the proposed change, and view it as a bad sign for Gentoo. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> As far as technical documentation about how ebuilds work (the core of |
| 10 |
> Gentoo, but also many other distributions; I have created several of |
| 11 |
> my own), PMS is an absolutely amazing document! |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I was not suggesting to get rid of it. Said another way, |
| 14 |
What is the reference implementation of PMS? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Java has lots of specs, and usually a reference implementation. In the |
| 17 |
case where there is no implementation is where companies compete. Thus |
| 18 |
would not be in any benefit to assist the other with an implementation. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> It comes down to whether Gentoo is a "meta-distribution" with |
| 21 |
> absolutely amazing generic tooling (including portage), or "simply" a |
| 22 |
> source-based distribution with an arbitrary package format. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I am suggesting Gentoo be the reference implementation, portage be the |
| 25 |
reference implementation of PMS. It should be limited by the developers |
| 26 |
not outsiders. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I cannot explain why those who do portage development are not the PMS |
| 29 |
authors. As a developer, it seems something is off there. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> PMS has tremendous value, and yes, EAPI is a process, and I am sure |
| 32 |
> that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from |
| 33 |
> PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are |
| 34 |
> all better off for it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
EAPI is surely a process, I came across a EAPI=2 ebuild the other day, |
| 37 |
and still likely some EAPI=0 in tree. I would not consider EAPI to be a |
| 38 |
success by any means. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
It creates waves of "wheel spinning". Revising the internals of an |
| 41 |
ebuild for little to no gain. If I updated that EAPI=2 ebuild. The |
| 42 |
installed result would be no different. Given that fact, I see no |
| 43 |
benefit to EAPI=6 over EAPI=2. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Without knowing specifics I guess I would suggest to the original |
| 46 |
> poster to create new tooling for the job that needs to be done. Maybe |
| 47 |
> even a fork of portage, at first only used in your (derivative) |
| 48 |
> Gentoo distribution? Just my idea for a possible solution. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I am not using a derived distributions. I am running Gentoo with a |
| 51 |
massive overlay due to the amount of packages not updated in tree. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
My overlay would not exist if I could have returned. I cannot improve |
| 54 |
from within thus I am limited to an overlay on top. But I am not |
| 55 |
running some other distro or making my own. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I have warm and open offers to be part of Funtoo. None of my systems |
| 58 |
run that. All my systems, servers and workstations run Gentoo. Just |
| 59 |
with a massive overlay slapped on top. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives