1 |
Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
2 |
> While the PMS perhaps hasn't been an unequivocal success, it's still a |
3 |
> good effort with some success. I would be disappointed to see the |
4 |
> proposed change, and view it as a bad sign for Gentoo. |
5 |
|
6 |
As far as technical documentation about how ebuilds work (the core of |
7 |
Gentoo, but also many other distributions; I have created several of |
8 |
my own), PMS is an absolutely amazing document! |
9 |
|
10 |
It comes down to whether Gentoo is a "meta-distribution" with |
11 |
absolutely amazing generic tooling (including portage), or "simply" a |
12 |
source-based distribution with an arbitrary package format. |
13 |
|
14 |
PMS has tremendous value, and yes, EAPI is a process, and I am sure |
15 |
that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from |
16 |
PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are |
17 |
all better off for it. |
18 |
|
19 |
Without knowing specifics I guess I would suggest to the original |
20 |
poster to create new tooling for the job that needs to be done. Maybe |
21 |
even a fork of portage, at first only used in your (derivative) |
22 |
Gentoo distribution? Just my idea for a possible solution. |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
//Peter |