From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SiLIF-0000IU-Fu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:02:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1446CE0B16; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D46E0B04 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (132.Red-2-137-17.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.17.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C88B1B4002 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4FE30236.8030208@gentoo.org> References: <4FE231BA.6020404@gentoo.org> <20120620213518.4baf8150@googlemail.com> <4FE24408.40302@gentoo.org> <1340258936.2470.5.camel@belkin4> <20120621080039.0724cf8d@googlemail.com> <1340263510.2470.18.camel@belkin4> <4FE30236.8030208@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-8QK85W25Dc302ycdsnyC" Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:01:01 +0200 Message-ID: <1340438461.5979.18.camel@belkin4> 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 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: fbcdd7cd-6a9a-401a-8270-fd31f846d280 X-Archives-Hash: 5d7d9c13707bc662aa36d2b9166f95e9 --=-8QK85W25Dc302ycdsnyC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 19:15 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribi=C3=B3: > On 06/21/12 15:25, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El jue, 21-06-2012 a las 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribi=C3=B3: > >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200 > >> Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago, > >>> you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and > >>> more work to delay things to be implemented. > >> I still haven't seen a clear description of exactly what should be > >> changed and why. I've also not seen a description of exactly what > >> problem is being solved, nor a discussion of the relative merits of > >> implementing a solution to whatever that problem is. All I've seen is = a > >> mess of code that "gets it working" in Portage (which isn't the same a= s > >> "implements it for Portage") and a big wall of text that contains lots > >> that no-one needs to know and little of what's important. This needs t= o > >> go through the GLEP process, and it needs a PMS diff. > >> > >> In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was > >> done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really > >> thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work... > >> > > Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer > > EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't > > know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need also a GLE= P > > and a PMS diff, also the needing to get an implementation for any > > package manager). Is this documented in some place? > No, and this is a rather random ad-hoc requirement that hasn't been > specified before. >=20 > All previous EAPI processes went through some debate with dev-portage@ > and the other involved people (mostly pkgcore/ferringb and > paludis/ciaranm), then the proposal got handed to council to vote on, > and if council was happy that proposal was hammered into PMS and the new > EAPI published. Most of the time new features had a crude approximation > of a patch for PMS available so that the documentation updates were done > in a timely manner. >=20 > I have no idea why Ciaran is trying to redefine the process now suddenly > and why people are taking this nonsense seriously. I take it seriously because looks like, effectively, this is blocking things. I remember when I first asked for an "easy" way of trying to allow administrator of Gentoo machines to easily handling all that needed rebuilds after updating: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D413619 Zac kindly pointed me to original bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D192319 I knew about that bug report but, as it was still pending after years, I thought there were technical issues making it hard to fix and, then, I tried to propose and easier solution at least until best one can be implemented. Then, if you remember the thread I opened here some weeks ago about this issue, you will see how things moved, even when Zac is already working on getting an implementation I am really worried about, even after Zac offering his work and time to get an implementation, when he offers it, Ciaran will reject it with some other excuse :( >=20 > > If not, I think it > > should be documented and, of course, it should be done by PMS team if > > possible as they clearly know what they expect to get for approval if > > needed since, I discussed some days ago, council will simply accept som= e > > specific features to be included in next eapi once they are accepted by > > PMS team. That way, we could save a lot of time, know what steps are > > pending, try to ask for help for some specific steps and, finally, get > > it discussed in PMS people providing all what is needed. > I would say PMS team accepts what council signs off ... or am I seeing > the order wrong here? >=20 >=20 > So, the normal way to get a feature into the next EAPI is ... write a > specification to the best of your capabilities, present it here, when > people are done bashing it ask PMS people to help you prepare a PMS > patch so that you can suggest it to Council, and then it's mostly a > matter of waiting until the next EAPI is finalized (which currently runs > at a glacial pace of about one EAPI a year as far as I remember) >=20 >=20 > Take care, >=20 > Patrick >=20 >=20 --=-8QK85W25Dc302ycdsnyC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk/ld70ACgkQCaWpQKGI+9TyUwCfcHXyH7VgjGsRhq+qjMk7zism tAIAnRJ9A+bGdgHUzKnr+0J7UjAJ8Fe8 =fjDr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-8QK85W25Dc302ycdsnyC--