| 1 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:07:25 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > >>>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > But it was an official Gentoo project, [...] |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > The 2008-04-10 council summary says something different: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > # The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs |
| 10 |
> > > could # not be in an approved PMS document. The spec isn't a |
| 11 |
> > > place for # proposals or things that will never be submitted for |
| 12 |
> > > approval by the # council. It's a specification, a reference of |
| 13 |
> > > what is allowed in the # main tree. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Please point to where the Council said that the Gentoo KDE project |
| 16 |
> > wasn't an official Gentoo project. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> That is unrelated to the matter. Please stop trying to confuse the |
| 19 |
> discussion when you run out of arguments. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I made a claim, and Ulrich said that the Council disagreed. But the |
| 22 |
decision he points to does not contradict the claim I made. It's |
| 23 |
entirely related. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> The council statement is VERY clear and unambiguous. What other |
| 26 |
> gentoo projects do on the side is their thing and not directly |
| 27 |
> related to PMS (unless you intend to have the prefix project merge |
| 28 |
> all their changes and new EAPIs into PMS?) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Sure. If the prefix project can put together a specification-quality |
| 31 |
description of their work, and can guarantee the level of stability |
| 32 |
that we need from EAPIs, I'd be happy to see it in PMS. It would be much |
| 33 |
more useful for package manager authors to have it documented and well |
| 34 |
defined. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> > > So, really no need to discuss it further. |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > Sure there is. Let's look at what happens if you remove it: |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > * It makes it harder for package manager authors to deal with things |
| 41 |
> > that were delivered by an official Gentoo project. |
| 42 |
> Then they need to read that project's documentation. The genkdesvn |
| 43 |
> project is free to split out their own PMS+kdebuild-1 fork. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Forks are a last resort. For package manager authors, having a single |
| 46 |
source rather than two is much easier, and if it's possible to do |
| 47 |
things that way then we should. Forks should only happen when there's |
| 48 |
no other way of resolving it. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Why should we make PMS less useful for package manager developers? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives