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 14:02:00
Message-Id: fk3b2a$k36$
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] PMS by Marius Mauch
Marius Mauch wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:46:32 +0000 > Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: > >> The concern I have with this is that PMS as developed by an external >> team is now being seen as authoritative for the whole of Gentoo. > > No version of PMS is authorative until it actually gets approved, and > all existing versions are just drafts. And an approved version would be > a finished document, not a repository, so the location or who works on > it is meaningless in this regard, though it might have an effect on > which versions will eventually get approved. >
Ah thanks for the clarification, genone. Makes me feel more relaxed about it, although I note that others are clearly taking the draft as authoritative. I hope there won't be backlash if people start writing ebuilds using new features, only for them not to be approved for the Gentoo PMS. There is no guarantee, aiui, that just because the Paludis guys have designed and implemented something and put it in the draft PMS hosted externally, it will be implemented, either in the same way or at all, in portage and pkgcore. That starts to cause dev mindshare issues, imo, and could lead to further acrimony later on down the line. It will surely lead to more disparaging comments about portage, as we have already seen. Personally I find them annoying simply because portage has built so many Gentoo systems, which we all use out of choice. -- gentoo-project@g.o mailing list