Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2016-03-13

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
>
> The above examples are needed in order to be able to provide working stuff,
> predate PMS and do not conform to it. The only issue they cause is that
> alternative PMs might not implement them properly.
>

I think the intent is to get stuff like this into PMS or change it,
not to just start breaking things arbitrarily.

The underlying message is that devs shouldn't just quietly rely on
non-PMS behavior without putting it on a tracker and use breakage as
an excuse.  If we're depending on non-PMS behavior we need to get that
onto a tracker so that either PMS or the packages can be fixed as
appropriate, and then once the issue is dealt with we need to stick to
PMS.

In any case, these are my general thoughts on the issue.  When
packages are still not aligned with PMS we should be tracking it and
fixing either the package or PMS.  Of course, we could spot some
non-PMS-compliant behavior that predates PMS 10 years from now, and it
isn't like we can just have QA just comment out some ebuild lines
without any regard to what it does to the tree.  When PMS issues come
up yesterday, tomorrow, or 10 years from now we have to deal with
their reality.  That said, we still need to DEAL with them and not
just ignore them.

-- 
Rich