From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K7tRk-00049P-Vc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:43:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE67AE0334; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE59E0334 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.2.154.46] (83.gprs-nat.mtsnet.ru [213.87.86.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2222266312 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June] From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080611215827.GB7074@comet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400 Message-Id: <1213540950.16905.149.camel@camobap> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b283561f-e00d-4cbb-860d-cf5d56e7754e X-Archives-Hash: ef88b8c8f97f2e29c576341b4d62b1f5 =D0=92 =D0=A7=D1=82=D0=B2, 12/06/2008 =D0=B2 09:36 +0200, Markus Ullmann = =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility > issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again > in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something > official for gentoo. Dismissing does not fix PMS. Since =EF=BB=BF=EF=BB=BFPMS requires some sp= ecific knowledge about package manager (PM) internals only few people can decide on this matters and do actual work. I think what council could do is to formalize PMS process and thus move from this "draft" point. By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team must represent portage developers and could =EF=BB=BFpaludis and pkgcore.= All suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in bugzilla council can not approve PMS. Of course this is just a sketch of idea. I'm not expanding it and not trying to discuss details at the moment as to make it viable at least one portage developer should support this idea... But even without portage developers this process at least could clear a bit the situation. For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo interests. So until team which will represent Gentoo interests arise, they'll work on PMS bugs and tell us that PMS is ready we should not spend our time discussing PMS and trying to approve it. --=20 Peter. --=20 gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list