| 1 |
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:06:11 -0700 |
| 2 |
"Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett |
| 4 |
> <spbennett@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the |
| 6 |
> > Council's consideration: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably |
| 9 |
> > close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. |
| 10 |
> > Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible |
| 11 |
> > on a timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as |
| 12 |
> > a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo |
| 13 |
> > tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the |
| 14 |
> > deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Is this not already the status quo? Surely a number of bugs in the |
| 17 |
> tree have already been fixed in this manner. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Currently some developers are quite happy to fix issues, whilst others |
| 20 |
prefer to yell "Portage is the only supported package manager and if it |
| 21 |
works for me with Portage you can go to hell"... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage that |
| 24 |
break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by PMS, |
| 25 |
under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives