Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 22:05:13
1 I think Gentoo council, developers, and portage developers should
2 consider changing the PMS, to something like Portage Manager
3 Specification, or Gentoo Portage Specification. Make it Gentoo
4 and portage specific, and others adhere to that standard.
6 I understand the rationale behind PMS. However there is really only 1
7 main package manager for Gentoo, portage. I am aware of pkgcore,
8 though thought more of it was in C. I think pkgcore is still behind
9 EAPI wise, so not at 6 yet. There is paludis, but it requires pretty
10 heavy changes and does not seem to run along side of portage as it once
11 did long ago. Not sure if anyone even has a system that has no portage
12 installed. No emerge command etc.
14 It seems a few times I have heard portage developers make comments
15 about being limited by PMS. That seems odd. To me the PMS should be
16 limited by portage, not the other way around. PMS should be based on
17 portage. Then other package managers must change to comply with that
18 specification. Rather than how things are now.
20 I have no control or participate in either portage or PMS development.
21 It is just an observation from having some needs. Which seems could
22 happen with portage. But can only happen if in the PMS. Which itself is
23 a process. Not sure in that case the PMS helps to expedite Gentoo
24 development, and may hinder. Since portage can only do what PMS allows
25 it to do. I think that should be reversed.
27 This is not saying drop PMS, have no PMS, etc. Just reverse, free
28 portage developers to do what they feel is needed for Gentoo. Then
29 other package managers can adhere to that specification. Make it
30 entirely internal and specific to Gentoo.
32 The PMS seems pretty abstract and not specific to Gentoo. Why even
33 bother with that? Why not Gentoo set its own standards for package
34 management? It seems aspects of portage are used for things like
35 Chrome OS and CoreOS, as well as parts of Gentoo. But seems more usage
36 of portage and not other package managers. Why not make it the
37 flagship? Portage be the standard, the specification/reference
38 implementation and others comply.
40 IMHO PMS should not hold back portage development, but portage
41 development hold back the PMS. PMS based on portage, not vice versa.
43 This will be my only post. Feel free to insult me, etc as you like.
44 Just an idea for others to discuss.
46 --
47 William L. Thomson Jr.