public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:05:00 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <assp.0386e164b8.20170801180500.778f2969@o-sinc.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2397 bytes --]

I think Gentoo council, developers, and portage developers should
consider changing the PMS, to something like Portage Manager
Specification, or Gentoo Portage Specification. Make it Gentoo
and portage specific, and others adhere to that standard.

I understand the rationale behind PMS. However there is really only 1
main package manager for Gentoo, portage. I am aware of pkgcore,
though thought more of it was in C. I think pkgcore is still behind
EAPI wise, so not at 6 yet. There is paludis, but it requires pretty
heavy changes and does not seem to run along side of portage as it once
did long ago. Not sure if anyone even has a system that has no portage
installed. No emerge command etc.

It seems a few times I have heard portage developers make comments
about being limited by PMS.  That seems odd. To me the PMS should be
limited by portage, not the other way around. PMS should be based on
portage. Then other package managers must change to comply with that
specification. Rather than how things are now.

I have no control or participate in either portage or PMS development.
It is just an observation from having some needs. Which seems could
happen with portage. But can only happen if in the PMS. Which itself is
a process. Not sure in that case the PMS helps to expedite Gentoo
development, and may hinder. Since portage can only do what PMS allows
it to do. I think that should be reversed.

This is not saying drop PMS, have no PMS, etc. Just reverse, free
portage developers to do what they feel is needed for Gentoo. Then
other package managers can adhere to that specification. Make it
entirely internal and specific to Gentoo.

The PMS seems pretty abstract and not specific to Gentoo. Why even
bother with that? Why not Gentoo set its own standards for package
management? It seems aspects of portage are used for things like
Chrome OS and CoreOS, as well as parts of Gentoo. But seems more usage
of portage and not other package managers. Why not make it the
flagship? Portage be the standard, the specification/reference
implementation and others comply.

IMHO PMS should not hold back portage development, but portage
development hold back the PMS. PMS based on portage, not vice versa.

This will be my only post. Feel free to insult me, etc as you like.
Just an idea for others to discuss.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2017-08-01 22:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-01 22:05 William L. Thomson Jr. [this message]
2017-08-01 23:19 ` [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification Sam Jorna
2017-08-12 14:50 ` Alexander Berntsen
2017-08-12 14:55   ` Gordon Pettey
2017-08-14 21:46     ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-08-14 22:38       ` Gordon Pettey
2017-08-16  7:54       ` Marek Szuba
2017-08-16  9:56         ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-08-16 12:54           ` Tim Harder
2017-08-14 18:42   ` Peter Stuge
2017-08-14 19:09     ` Rich Freeman
2017-08-14 21:26       ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-08-14 22:20         ` Rich Freeman
2017-08-14 22:39           ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-08-15  6:48             ` Michał Górny
2017-08-16 20:42             ` Daniel Campbell
2017-08-14 20:42     ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2017-08-14 21:20       ` Rich Freeman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=assp.0386e164b8.20170801180500.778f2969@o-sinc.com \
    --to=wlt-ml@o-sinc.com \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox