Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: PMS
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:27:20
Message-Id: fk3cim$nr6$
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] PMS by Roy Bamford
Roy Bamford wrote:
> Steve, > > The offical package manager is portage. If another package manager does > something different to portage - even if it fixes a bug in portage, by > definition, its not compliant. >
I take it as the spec is what portage is /supposed/ to do, assuming no bugs. That's not hard to quantify, since portage normally works pretty well (you get an occasional testing release that introduces a bug or regression, which is to be expected) and the portage team know what it's supposed to do, and are forthcoming to other projects. The only bug I've found that annoys me, and hasn't been fixed, is the one where it doesn't pick up that a blocking package is about to be updated before the blockee, so the block will no longer apply. This is easy for a user to spot, so it's easy for a script to fix, and we implemented that workaround in update months ago. I'm totally happy with portage and trust its dev team. I know full well that 2.2 is in the works and have no issue waiting for it to get here, as in the meantime portage has worked reliably, as the install base shows.
> The exisiting PMS have been arrived at by documenting what portage > does, which is itself a moving target. > No PMS is likely to be endorsed until Portage stays still long enough > to document it, check it and ratifiy it, unless some arbitary portage > version is chosen to document. >
I think we should talk more about EAPI than PMS. That's what ebuild devs work to, a BASH api to the most part, with specification of how strings are composed and what they mean to the PM.
> Any such PMS won't be very useful, as portage will have moved on > meanwhile. A PMS will only be useful when its adopted and maintained by > the portage devs, when portage will become a reference inplementaion of > the spec. I don't see that happening, since they don't need such a > document. >
I agree that the EAPI is not fixed until it's agreed and implemented by portage. The PMS thing seems extraneous to Gentoo needs atm; it's more to enable other projects to interoperate with the tree. It certainly wasn't needed for pkgcore imo. -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: PMS Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>