| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Chris Gianelloni |
| 2 |
<wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion |
| 5 |
| > | so that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to |
| 6 |
| > | rest. |
| 7 |
| > |
| 8 |
| > *shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully |
| 9 |
| > conformant independent implementation, personally. So that more or |
| 10 |
| > less means that for me, PMS will become a priority at around the |
| 11 |
| > same time that Paludis 1.0_pre is released. |
| 12 |
| |
| 13 |
| Are you really saying that you won't be releasing this information |
| 14 |
| until such time as *Paludis* meets it, even though portage/pkgcore |
| 15 |
| may not? Isn't the *point* of this spec to try to bring everyone on |
| 16 |
| the same page? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the |
| 19 |
specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors. |
| 20 |
This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the |
| 21 |
principal difference between, say, Open Document Format and Office Open |
| 22 |
XML -- the former is a real standard, whereas the latter is a |
| 23 |
description of how one program operates. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Now, if PMS happens to end up being ready before Paludis 1.0, PMS will |
| 26 |
get released before then. But if Paludis 1.0 ends up being ready before |
| 27 |
PMS, my and probably others' priorities will switch to getting PMS |
| 28 |
ready as quickly as sanely possible. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 32 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 33 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 34 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives