| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Rich, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm going to reply in a slightly reversed order -- bear with me! |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On 01/08/14 02:34, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 9 |
> So, this is more than just a portage design question, and I think |
| 10 |
> it is fair for the Council to take up. Obviously the feelings of |
| 11 |
> the portage maintainers should be carefully considered. |
| 12 |
Dynamic dependencies are not specified. As such, this is in fact a bug |
| 13 |
rather than a question of design. If you want to talk design, I invite |
| 14 |
you to do this in #gentoo-portage or on the gentoo-portage-dev mailing |
| 15 |
list. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Personally, I am slightly surprised by the reactions and uproar this bug |
| 18 |
fix has caused. At my day job, we commend each other for fixing bugs, |
| 19 |
and express gratefulness for the effort. On that note I would like to |
| 20 |
express my esteem for Michał, and the work he has put in here. I know he |
| 21 |
has worked many hours with finding the least intrusive possible fix for |
| 22 |
this bug. Thanks, Michał! |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> So, I realize there is a bit of a fine line in the |
| 25 |
> telling-contributors-how-to-contribute department here. To some |
| 26 |
> extent how portage is developed is up to the portage project |
| 27 |
> (though anybody who wants to could always fork it and add yet |
| 28 |
> another package manager to the tree). |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> What really does fall into the Council's domain strongly is PMS and |
| 31 |
> tree policy. If we have the tree target a package manger that |
| 32 |
> does not support dynamic dependencies, then we would want to do |
| 33 |
> revbumps anytime dependencies change (new virtuals, eclass |
| 34 |
> upgrades, etc). If we target a package manager that does do dynamic |
| 35 |
> dependencies then we probably would want to forbid revbumps on such |
| 36 |
> changes, which of course would tend to break things for anybody |
| 37 |
> using a package manager that didn't support dynamic dependencies. |
| 38 |
I appreciate that PMS and tree policy is important. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
PMS does not specify dynamic dependencies. This means that if Portage |
| 41 |
uses dynamic dependencies, and tree hackers rely on this behaviour, we |
| 42 |
are needlessly making life difficult for users of other package |
| 43 |
managers. Consequently, Portage should strive to follow the PMS's |
| 44 |
intention as closely as possible. If you want to do some work on |
| 45 |
formulating how dependencies are handled, please use the gentoo-pms |
| 46 |
mailing list. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Tree policy, I'm afraid, has to adapt to Portage; not the other way |
| 49 |
around. The Portage team is too small to be "bossed around" or "take |
| 50 |
orders". That's just the way things are right now. But we follow the PMS |
| 51 |
as closely as we are able to. Contributions are of course always welcome. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> So, not trying to take a position pro/con in this email. I just |
| 54 |
> wanted to state that I think this is something with wide-ranging |
| 55 |
> impact and more than just a portage issue. |
| 56 |
It has impact. We, the Portage team, appreciate this and will do our |
| 57 |
best to be cooperative in the transitional phase. |
| 58 |
- -- |
| 59 |
Alexander |
| 60 |
bernalex@g.o |
| 61 |
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander |
| 62 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 63 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 64 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPbf0IACgkQRtClrXBQc7XKPAEAqVPLmVWpekj8qhEeSMSUTM3F |
| 67 |
mgKlGHa3Ph+ZuWmWzxcA/1Nj7fT+FHG+ieCE9r6pKJuL7tmcNN5LZpkdlrjVHf+j |
| 68 |
=p4+U |
| 69 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives