Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
>
> I am sure
> that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from
> PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are
> all better off for it.
>

Honestly, I've yet to see any portage developers complaining about PMS here.

In general the main hoops to jump through if you want something in PMS are:

1.  A well-thought-out design.  (May involve list bikeshedding/etc,
with input from the portage team and other interested parties being
key.)
2.  A portage implementation.  (Which is an issue if you want
something in portage no matter what.)
3.  Council approval.  (Which tends to happen if you have #1-2 and
aren't just ignoring list feedback.)

It is pretty common for people to do them in the order 1-3-2 with 3
being a provisional approval so that the portage developers don't spin
their wheels.

Usually when #1 ends up being the hangup there tend to be serious
concerns about how the concept will work in reality.  If it will make
ebuilds harder to maintain or their behavior less predictable then an
implementation alone isn't enough.  Either that or there are concerns
that the design doesn't fully address the need, which often happens
when we add a new dependency type.

IMO the process isn't really broken, and I doubt that changing the
name would change anything.  We don't wait for other package managers
to support a new PMS version before using it in the tree.  We do value
the input of anybody with expertise in this area, though the Council
holds the final say.  PMS has a huge impact on our QA and I think
we're generally better off for the time spent on it.

If somebody actually does have a PMS proposal that has been stalled it
wouldn't hurt to share it, or if the portage team feels otherwise.

-- 
Rich