Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:19:47
Message-Id: 20091211195332.739e4c63@snowcone
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales by Brian Harring
1 On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:42:41 -0800
2 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
3 > Bluntly, you would be pissed if you got stuck having long term
4 > support for an experimental eapi I split w/out consult- why do you
5 > think that the reverse wouldn't hold?
7 No, if a large project such as, say, the Gentoo KDE project, had asked
8 you for support for a well documented EAPI and you had provided it, I
9 would have also implemented that EAPI in Paludis.
11 kdebuild-1 was not done without consultation. It was the result of a
12 considerable amount of work from an official Gentoo project, and it was
13 a well defined, published standard. It was in no way an experiment.
15 > Regardless, if you didn't plan for phasing out an experimental eapi,
16 > it's not the mainstream eapi's problem- it's your mess to clean up.
18 kdebuild-1 was not experimental.
20 > If we did as you asked, we would have to document every pre eapi
21 > portage has had (at least 8 off the top of my head), the previous
22 > iterations of prefix, and realistically, the exherbo format should
23 > some user manage to install an exheres-0 build into a gentoo box.
24 > This *is* the case- it's applying the same logic you're using for
25 > trying to keep kdebuild-1 in.
27 Er, no. None of those have ever been published, documented standards.
29 > What I find pointless about this discussion is this notion that
30 > because you jammed kdebuild into the official eapi doc, the pms team
31 > in it's current incarnation is responsible for keeping kdebuild
32 > around and cleaning up that mess.
34 No no no. Because the Gentoo PMS project, at the request of the Gentoo
35 KDE project, included support for one of their published EAPIs, the
36 Gentoo PMS project would be irresponsible to just remove it without
37 ensuring that it won't affect users.
39 > 2) write a converter. As said, since it's only *rm phases you really
40 > have to care about for allowing it to be removed by other managers,
41 > this isn't incredibly hard- further, full metadata rewrite is
42 > probably possible w/ eapi2 bits.
44 Writing a converter is more work than a simple phased removal.
46 > That solves it technically, rather then just ignoring it and
47 > pretending we won't have this exact discussion a year later w/ the
48 > same claims as to why it can't be removed.
50 A year later, we can easily have had kdebuild-1 removed in a
51 responsible manner.
53 > Additional thing- note the compromise I mentioned, adding into PMS
54 > urls directing users where to go for experimental format information,
55 > or to get at old/dead official eapis. If they can't catch a
56 > paragraph upfront telling them where to look, it's their problem.
58 More work than just doing it properly.
60 > Finally, and I admit this is a bit barbed- any user who install this
61 > eapi should've known it was experimental and that they could get
62 > support for it for paludis only. If the user thought it was someday
63 > going to become an official eapi, that's the user/managers problem,
64 > not ours.
66 kdebuild-1 was not experimental. It was an official Gentoo KDE project
67 EAPI.
69 > More importantly, pms's responsibility/purpose for gentoo is
70 > presenting users with documentation on the *official* eapis- forcing
71 > kdebuild bits into that doc misleads users into thinking kdebuild is
72 > official, thus supported. User confusion there is, and has been,
73 > rather annoying.
75 And at the time, the Gentoo KDE project considered kdebuild-1 to be an
76 official EAPI.
78 --
79 Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionales Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>