From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74DE01396D0 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B4D0AE0D09; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4466BE0CB6 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id r77so15480549wmd.2 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:09:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=HVgIcV8LxSnMWjxVPXT7COCXB01qlEDF83QlEjCQ824=; b=M4qUVv9PBYREED7XJ/e9vFMLeE/Wu1mA+vSTQINGuT/P4avVTOTOPlEsw5jkIXS2qW Nf/fHnVpxniYM2id49Ajx406AUaOXg/FA7mzzkD1FK1id18Yscc0I6r68vazAdGFzsjP h045aHqgZ5toGZ6bzWutb/ipRzzy09dJhg9Q3+I6V4+h8sYBH3aKNVMBzA1mT/xg/JFu 2KHQuA7wQcjoJtQ5CDgvSucmrH95A1SnyWsxVvFNxYGZ59Cq+d7fjozPfgH+tkXr07fd FT9yan6RVt806SlPZF6kYLyig5YgMnNVFOKpUA5hhrn+7U4bqiG4X3zW/n2ghpglqc9A 2j8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=HVgIcV8LxSnMWjxVPXT7COCXB01qlEDF83QlEjCQ824=; b=j92hq5+9Stscet38v/ZMtvezJ/y0ddCyHzgZHx9GAX+kj1H5zT9SDvYXMAyhwLeAl+ 308whhagzu8ZwO0ZwWDh0vK+4fyc19+I+bv4JfK79wrJPgR9Gk2fuivJbpblCGGKF70v vsikLP1l06Fo99dxYWrDad8X3Z1aml0NBS84hefmmHJGNT9izaeLQsdiSEsRaq4aJGAn Cspjr0vCYi6Q6BhwqfDvH8Tbj2DASUpMDUtgTAcTW4SqH/3WkFqoQBfrd0zI9E6FtcaG mPNWqnRzGzqp/fvll3Og8dWxfce/juuM6kO+siQnmA1opIfsW7JlXjfariUgw71Gpfm0 3geg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5j5mgBilWMZKvIYC9UwxjkFShwmhdwjM106MOoQp3Fv0EV5hCWT wPbVvcOk1if5mqaIVQRSAig3XR2Oy43Q X-Received: by 10.28.238.71 with SMTP id m68mr12131wmh.130.1502737756554; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:09:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.169.238 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:09:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170814184221.GP22159@stuge.se> References: <36fd7740-c0c9-5957-0e6b-38b5fd50bba0@gentoo.org> <20170814184221.GP22159@stuge.se> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:09:15 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: M7tqNzhvV19GMlOybxXfZhI1NUA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: a0e960b1-ba63-47ca-8b80-5ed4e73d11e3 X-Archives-Hash: b43e26d8811fb192f0f7dcf8b47653b7 On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I am sure > that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from > PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are > all better off for it. > Honestly, I've yet to see any portage developers complaining about PMS here. In general the main hoops to jump through if you want something in PMS are: 1. A well-thought-out design. (May involve list bikeshedding/etc, with input from the portage team and other interested parties being key.) 2. A portage implementation. (Which is an issue if you want something in portage no matter what.) 3. Council approval. (Which tends to happen if you have #1-2 and aren't just ignoring list feedback.) It is pretty common for people to do them in the order 1-3-2 with 3 being a provisional approval so that the portage developers don't spin their wheels. Usually when #1 ends up being the hangup there tend to be serious concerns about how the concept will work in reality. If it will make ebuilds harder to maintain or their behavior less predictable then an implementation alone isn't enough. Either that or there are concerns that the design doesn't fully address the need, which often happens when we add a new dependency type. IMO the process isn't really broken, and I doubt that changing the name would change anything. We don't wait for other package managers to support a new PMS version before using it in the tree. We do value the input of anybody with expertise in this area, though the Council holds the final say. PMS has a huge impact on our QA and I think we're generally better off for the time spent on it. If somebody actually does have a PMS proposal that has been stalled it wouldn't hurt to share it, or if the portage team feels otherwise. -- Rich