Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: Re: PMS
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:58
Message-Id: fk635c$6f7$
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: PMS by Ferris McCormick
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> PMS is a specification and is useful for anyone who > works with packages, regardless of package manager. Or for any new > portage developers for that matter. It's easier for everyone if the > behavior of any package manager you choose (portage or pkgcore or > paludis or ...) is defined by a specification rather than by just what > the code does. >
I agree 100% that the EAPI ebuild authors can expect should be documented and specified precisely. The concern was over process, as to whether the stance has changed wrt the PMS hosted on Gentoo infra being the "authorised" version.
>> Having a spec isn't an issue: the issue is having it developed as a >> mainstream Gentoo project, with open discussion. Frankly you're not very >> good at that, in so far as your manner does not invite discussion; you've >> made it quite clear that you think many of the devs (whose work your >> project relies on), let alone the users, are "idiots". >> > I don't know that it matters where it comes from; what matters is that > it is correct. I understand that this statement probably puts me on the > fringe. >
Certainly correctness is vital. Wrt to discussing future changes, the manner in which that is done matters too, imo. As genone pointed out, it won't be authorised until the Council approve it, so my main concern is alleviated. -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list