| 1 |
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:09:15 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I am sure |
| 7 |
> > that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from |
| 8 |
> > PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are |
| 9 |
> > all better off for it. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Honestly, I've yet to see any portage developers complaining about |
| 13 |
> PMS here. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
There are not that many, the core ones tend to do most the work |
| 16 |
https://github.com/gentoo/portage/graphs/contributors |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But I do not seem them participating here much. |
| 19 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/ |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Also not sure that is mirrored to Github for what ever reason. To major |
| 22 |
flags, no mirror to github, and little to no involvement from core |
| 23 |
portage developers. That seems like a disconnect there. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Why would it not be mirred to Github? Not wanting outside PRs or input |
| 26 |
on PMS? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> In general the main hoops to jump through if you want something in |
| 29 |
> PMS are: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
From a developer perspective, jumping through hoops will limit |
| 32 |
creativity, and if nothing else hold back development. I tend to prefer |
| 33 |
to keep development more unrestrained. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Usually when #1 ends up being the hangup there tend to be serious |
| 36 |
> concerns about how the concept will work in reality. If it will make |
| 37 |
> ebuilds harder to maintain or their behavior less predictable then an |
| 38 |
> implementation alone isn't enough. Either that or there are concerns |
| 39 |
> that the design doesn't fully address the need, which often happens |
| 40 |
> when we add a new dependency type. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is debate |
| 43 |
on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug request and |
| 44 |
makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and PMS lacking |
| 45 |
anything on sets. |
| 46 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> IMO the process isn't really broken, and I doubt that changing the |
| 49 |
> name would change anything. We don't wait for other package managers |
| 50 |
> to support a new PMS version before using it in the tree. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
More like package managers cannot add features not mentioned by PMS. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> We do value |
| 55 |
> the input of anybody with expertise in this area, though the Council |
| 56 |
> holds the final say. PMS has a huge impact on our QA and I think |
| 57 |
> we're generally better off for the time spent on it. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
PMS I do not see as related to QA. It is something for other package |
| 60 |
managers. I fail to see how PMS makes QA better. If anything repoman |
| 61 |
makes QA better. I would have to double check but I bet many things |
| 62 |
repoman looks out for is not in PMS. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> If somebody actually does have a PMS proposal that has been stalled it |
| 65 |
> wouldn't hurt to share it, or if the portage team feels otherwise. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Just the needs I have with portage are stalled, marked as invalid. No |
| 68 |
discussion for inclusion in PMS. Like documenting sets. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives