Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:40
Message-Id: 200703040313.45292.jstubbs@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Sunday 04 March 2007 02:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
3 >
4 > wrote:
5 > > There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple
6 > > repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a
7 > > seperate thread, Marius said something to the effect of "specs are
8 > > much easier to extend than to alter". Having read that, I think we
9 > > were both wrong - specification of a repository should probably have
10 > > been left out completely until repositories had been hashed out.
11 >
12 > Which is what I was pushing for all along. I was trying to leave
13 > multiple repositories entirely out of it -- despite Paludis making use
14 > of them -- because the GLEP had nothing to do with multiple
15 > repositories.
16
17 I don't remember the specifics, but I remember that there was something that
18 didn't seem to go along with our vision. But yes, I do remember you pushing
19 for keeping multiple repositories out of it. In general I try to look at
20 everything as my fault (ie. what could I have done different?) and in that
21 case I probably should have moved to remove whatever it was that didn't sit
22 right rather than pushing to have it adjusted to my vision.
23
24 > > To sidetrack just a little more, I think this illustrates one of the
25 > > reasons why having PMS (aka EAPI-0 spec) completed is so important.
26 > > Not only would it allow for Gentoo package manager(s) to be
27 > > interchanged/replaced, it would provide a incontrovertible context
28 > > for discussion of new features.
29 >
30 > There aren't going to be any new features in PMS. The only package
31 > manager changes that we want to come about as a result of it are bug
32 > fixes.
33
34 Yep and that's a good thing.
35
36 > Incidentally... Side note on PMS vs EAPI-0: the way PMS is written,
37 > it's deliberately very easy to integrate EAPI-1, EAPI-2 or whatever
38 > into the document. Consider PMS to be a document that is capable of
39 > holding all EAPIs, with EAPI-0 being the only one that's actually there
40 > for now. Once EAPI-1 is agreed upon, it can be added to PMS rather than
41 > having to be a whole new document.
42
43 That also sounds like a good thing as it gives new ebuild authors a single
44 authoritative source on what to expect from a package manager. Although
45 EAPI-0 will still be defined, even if it is only as "revision XYZ of PMS".
46
47 Also, as a leading dev to a (for a? on a? i've spent too long in Japan :/)
48 "not an official Gentoo project" package manager, I hope you realize the
49 danger of not having explicit versions of the document. Take, for example,
50 the lack of acceptance of some changes to the dev guide that have been
51 somewhat controversial...
52
53 > > This is really irrelevant. It's not matter of "if" he gets access but
54 > > only as to "when". After the initial work is done and the team is
55 > > ready to go public all his "noise" will come out. I can only think of
56 > > two choices here: 1) whether you and he both continue to be visceral
57 > > or instead try to build a good working relationship; and
58 > > 2) whether you discuess any issues with the spec now or when it goes
59 > > public.
60 >
61 > That's a fairly big difference. If it's later on, there won't be lots
62 > of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of twisted
63 > proof that PMS sucks.
64
65 That's a "yep" again to it being a fairly big difference although I won't
66 back your justifications. It's something you as a team and ultimately Stephen
67 needs to decide. Either way, I'm just reminding all that you're not
68 preventing Brian from having a say.
69
70
71 Anyway.. Unless your reply has either something that I don't agree with or
72 that is really exciting, I'll let you have the last say. (Why is it that
73 those that are technically minded always want to have the last say? ;)
74
75 --
76 Jason Stubbs
77 --
78 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>