| 1 |
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:16:25 -0700 |
| 2 |
"Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in |
| 4 |
> most cases I would support that assertion) |
| 5 |
> who would fix them? The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt |
| 6 |
> the council is going to *force* them to accept said |
| 7 |
> patches. Is QA going to fix these bugs? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If PMS has official standing, the maintainer will. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage |
| 12 |
> > that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by |
| 13 |
> > PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break |
| 16 |
> existing packages |
| 17 |
> that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion |
| 18 |
> that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Only in cases where Portage's behaviour is unspecifiable. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt |
| 23 |
> you can compel him to comply with PMS |
| 24 |
> 100% unless this is driven by developers themselves. He (not unlike |
| 25 |
> me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Please explain how deliberately and knowingly breaking existing ebuilds |
| 28 |
without bothering to work out the consequences, and refusing to fix it |
| 29 |
with the hope that no-one will notice is pragmatic. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives