| 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. |
| 5 |
|
| 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. |
| 13 |
|
| 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. |
| 19 |
|
| 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. |
| 26 |
|
| 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. |
| 31 |
|
| 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. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
IMHO PMS should not hold back portage development, but portage |
| 41 |
development hold back the PMS. PMS based on portage, not vice versa. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
This will be my only post. Feel free to insult me, etc as you like. |
| 44 |
Just an idea for others to discuss. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives