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 |