Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant'

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1695 bytes --]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:13:59 -0400
Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
> I think it's clear at this point that Ciaran was the wrong person to
> have in charge of the PMS or EAPI spec's despite his willingness to do
> the work..  I tried to talk to him about having Paludis support an
> extension of PMS which Portage already supported.  His response was to
> DEMAND that portage change his behavior and throw warnings about this
> because it wasn't in the PMS (which I will note is an accurately
> acronym'd document).
> 
> ttp://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261

...and then for the feature to be introduced properly, in a controlled
manner, yes.

> The users simply don't care about this stuff, and throwing warnings at
> every user in the manner advocated is abuse.

The warnings don't make it to the user. The warnings make sure
developers catch the problem and fix it.

> This sort of behavior simply needs to stop.  Using bugs.gentoo.org to
> attack Funtoo, which utilizes Portage, in the manner which has been
> done usurps the Gentoo Council's authority, the Portage devs, Funtoo,
> and most importantly our ability to innovate.

Funtoo can do whatever it wants. There are plenty of ways for it to do
that. One way might be for Funtoo to make its own EAPI including the
extensions it needs, and get Portage to support that. Unfortunately,
your incorrect belief that EAPIs had nothing to do with Portage when
this came up prevented you from considering that solution.

> And hell, if we're not going to innovate, lets all please pack up and
> go home.

I look forward to seeing Funtoo's creation of EAPI funtoo-2.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]