| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:06:11 -0700 |
| 4 |
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett |
| 6 |
>> <spbennett@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the |
| 8 |
>> > Council's consideration: |
| 9 |
>> > |
| 10 |
>> > "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably |
| 11 |
>> > close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. |
| 12 |
>> > Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible |
| 13 |
>> > on a timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as |
| 14 |
>> > a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo |
| 15 |
>> > tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the |
| 16 |
>> > deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Is this not already the status quo? Surely a number of bugs in the |
| 19 |
>> tree have already been fixed in this manner. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Currently some developers are quite happy to fix issues, whilst others |
| 22 |
> prefer to yell "Portage is the only supported package manager and if it |
| 23 |
> works for me with Portage you can go to hell"... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in |
| 26 |
most cases I would support that assertion) |
| 27 |
who would fix them? The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt |
| 28 |
the council is going to *force* them to accept said |
| 29 |
patches. Is QA going to fix these bugs? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage that |
| 33 |
> break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by PMS, |
| 34 |
> under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break |
| 37 |
existing packages |
| 38 |
that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion |
| 39 |
that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software" |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt |
| 42 |
you can compel him to comply with PMS |
| 43 |
100% unless this is driven by developers themselves. He (not unlike |
| 44 |
me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-Alec |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> -- |
| 50 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
| 51 |
> |
Archives