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

[Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net>]

Steven J Long wrote:
> Rémi Cardona wrote:
>
>   
>> Le 18/08/2009 03:30, Steven J Long a écrit :
>> [snip]
>>
>> Steven,
>>
>> This thread was dead for more than 4 days. Yet you pick it up and you
>> try to pick a fight with Ciaran.
>>
>>     
> No I was answering the points he made, specifically he gave the fact that
> something's not used in the tree as a reason not to put it in PMS. The
> prior mail about an alternative perspective on the process was about his
> continual digs at portage and its developers. You're right that much of it
> was more relevant to -project, but when I post there it gets ignored:
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_6c82019575749b628de20de060149782.xml
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_28e2659029951f7edeab10b01cd21d53.xml
>   

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

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

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

Andrew D Kirch
Funtoo





Andrew D Kirch
Funtoo.org