| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Sure, but the portage team can really only dictate the upstream |
| 5 |
>> defaults of portage, not tree policy. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> As I understand, they intend to remove non-dynamic deps |
| 8 |
> (if they agreed to not implement it properly for sub-slots, |
| 9 |
> this makes sense). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So we are not speaking about defaults but a fixed behaviour of |
| 12 |
> portage. Paludis had this fixed behaviour since ever. |
| 13 |
> Thus, esssentially, there is no other choice than to adopt the |
| 14 |
> necessary tree policy to the only existing implementations - |
| 15 |
> not council decision is needed for it unless there are package |
| 16 |
> managers which do it differently. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Like I said, we can either have a formal decision, or listen to |
| 19 |
everybody fight WW3 over it for three years. What is the value in |
| 20 |
doing the latter? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The fact that none of the package managers work with a tree practice |
| 23 |
won't stop developers from doing it anyway. Plus, any of them can |
| 24 |
just fork portage and put that in the tree - there is no policy that |
| 25 |
states that there can be only one implementation of portage. Heck, |
| 26 |
they could just follow the same upstream and patch it in the ebuild. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
People seem to think that just going and imposing a change on |
| 29 |
everybody else without their input somehow makes things more |
| 30 |
efficient, or less political. The reality is that it just results in |
| 31 |
more politics, since many will not accept the validity of their |
| 32 |
actions. It also isn't how we do things around here. If you want to |
| 33 |
change tree policy, propose it on a list, let everybody have their |
| 34 |
say, and then if necessary let the council impose a decision. People |
| 35 |
might not like the decision, but most devs will at least respect the |
| 36 |
legitimacy of it. If they don't respect the decision they can be |
| 37 |
booted, and the council will back that up. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This isn't about who is or isn't right, or whether the portage team |
| 40 |
knows what they're doing. This is about having a process (GLEP 39) |
| 41 |
and following it. The portage team can do whatever they want with |
| 42 |
portage (after all, nobody has to use portage), but if they want to |
| 43 |
change what everybody else is doing with their ebuilds they have to |
| 44 |
follow the process. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Rich |
Archives