Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 +0000 Steve Long
> >
> > <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation,
> > | > the specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of
> > | > errors.
> > |
> > | Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should
> > | happen will have loads of errors?
> >
> > Yes. It will describe what people think is allowed, rather than
> > what really is.
>
[snip]
> > Perfect example -- we'd never have caught the multiple
> > sourcing issue without an independent implementation.
>
> That issue was caught long ago by the portage branch of ebd (now
> known as pkgcore) actually, portage-2.1_alpha20050718 being the
> specific released version (rest where unofficial tarballs).  Tree has
> degraded a bit since then, but already went after the issue a long
> while back to try and get things cleaned.
>
> I'm well aware thats going to be read "nya nya, we saw it first";
> that's not the intention.  Intention is to point out that y'all are
> basically covering territory others may already have, thus
> potentially making the same mistakes others did.  Re: env save/reload
> mistakes, will address it in a seperate email within next day or so
> (need to write it mainly).
>
> > | In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it
> > | isn't a pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communicate with
> > | ferringb)
>
> <mild reordering follows>
>
> > b) they're more interested in replacing
> > the ebuild format
>
> Pure and absolute FUD; recall which project has added incompatible
> version extensions, which is dropping running *rm when reinstalling
> the same ver, which *still* doesn't actually implement overlay logic,
> leading to overlay authors having to copy master files into each
> overlay branch.
Please have a look at our code before you make such claims.
Also have a look at our statements regarding overlays again. Overlays
can't be configure properly. Multiple repositories can. Nobody says 
there should be no sharing between them, but it needs to be configured
by the user.

> Not intending on bashing, point is, pkgcore has  *never* pushed
> "replacing the ebuild format", nor realistically changes to the
> ebuild/repo/configuration formats; implying otherwise is indicative
> of one being out of touch with reality.
>
> > Because a) they haven't asked,
>
> Oddly enough, asked.  Got the "we give access to those who are
> useful" response several time over.  Bringing up the issue, generally
> seems to trigger that response.
>
> > and c) every other time they've gotten involved
> > they've been highly unhelpful.
>

> > And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package
> > manager specification?
>
> Wolf31o2 (chris) is releng moreso; one of the few folks doing
> non-trivial things with the profiles pretty much, with long term
> experience doing so.
>
> In that regard, he's one of a few handful of people who basically
> could be considered profile experts- further, he's a catalyst monkey,
> which at least currently, is the stage building method.
He said there would be no need for infrastructure to be involved; a 
claim i back. Nobody said Chris shouldn't be involved, and further more 
as Chris is a council member he has the opportunity for read-only 
access or a copy of the PMS repository under the prerequsite that it 
will not be shared until it's finished.

Both kloeri and I have taken this opportunity and we told the other 
council members in one of the meetings.

> > Somehow I don't think you have the slightest clue what the scope of
> > the document is...
>
> The suggetions he's laying out is intended to get multiple folks
> involved who each have their own specialized domain knowledge.
>
> For example, dismissing Chris when he's effectively the "profiles
> guy".  Granted, can involve him afterwards, but don't much see the
> point in *not* doing it up front.
Read again, he did not dismiss Chris, he dismissed the claim that 
Infrastructure should send somebody to discuss the package manager 
standard.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list