| 1 |
В Чтв, 12/06/2008 в 09:36 +0200, Markus Ullmann пишет: |
| 2 |
> The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility |
| 3 |
> issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again |
| 4 |
> in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something |
| 5 |
> official for gentoo. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Dismissing does not fix PMS. Since PMS requires some specific |
| 8 |
knowledge about package manager (PM) internals only few people can |
| 9 |
decide on this matters and do actual work. I think what council could do |
| 10 |
is to formalize PMS process and thus move from this "draft" point. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team |
| 13 |
must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All |
| 14 |
suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for PMS |
| 15 |
is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After voting |
| 16 |
patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in bugzilla |
| 17 |
council can not approve PMS. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Of course this is just a sketch of idea. I'm not expanding it and not |
| 20 |
trying to discuss details at the moment as to make it viable at least |
| 21 |
one portage developer should support this idea... But even without |
| 22 |
portage developers this process at least could clear a bit the |
| 23 |
situation. For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody |
| 24 |
from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent |
| 25 |
Gentoo interests. So until team which will represent Gentoo interests |
| 26 |
arise, they'll work on PMS bugs and tell us that PMS is ready we should |
| 27 |
not spend our time discussing PMS and trying to approve it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Peter. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives