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 767441396D0 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:42:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC1071FC04B; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.obsidian-studios.com (mail.obsidian-studios.com [173.230.135.215]) (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 86C001FC03B for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 21776 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2017 20:42:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO assp1.obsidian-studios.com) (wlt-ml@::ffff:127.0.0.1) by ::ffff:127.0.0.1 with ESMTPA; 14 Aug 2017 20:42:11 -0000 X-Assp-Version: 2.5.5(17073) on assp1.obsidian-studios.com X-Assp-ID: assp1.obsidian-studios.com m1-43331-18262 X-Assp-Session: 33272630190 (mail 1) X-Assp-Envelope-From: wlt-ml@o-sinc.com X-Assp-Intended-For: peter@stuge.se X-Assp-Intended-For: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Assp-Server-TLS: yes Received: from unknown ([fdbe:bad:a55:0:1::211] helo=localhost) by assp1.obsidian-studios.com with SMTPSA(TLSv1_2 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) (2.5.5); 14 Aug 2017 16:42:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:42:06 -0400 From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: Peter Stuge Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20170814184221.GP22159@stuge.se> References: <36fd7740-c0c9-5957-0e6b-38b5fd50bba0@gentoo.org> <20170814184221.GP22159@stuge.se> Organization: Obsidian-Studios, Inc. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/Y8k61pkfSAeZkZi9oIZ4iM7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 21bf0bef-2dde-4b51-b1ec-a10b13924961 X-Archives-Hash: 2a508c350b1857c113dbdabd316e65fc --Sig_/Y8k61pkfSAeZkZi9oIZ4iM7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:42:21 +0000 Peter Stuge wrote: > Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > While the PMS perhaps hasn't been an unequivocal success, it's > > still a good effort with some success. I would be disappointed to > > see the proposed change, and view it as a bad sign for Gentoo. =20 >=20 > As far as technical documentation about how ebuilds work (the core of > Gentoo, but also many other distributions; I have created several of > my own), PMS is an absolutely amazing document! I was not suggesting to get rid of it. Said another way, What is the reference implementation of PMS? Java has lots of specs, and usually a reference implementation. In the case where there is no implementation is where companies compete. Thus would not be in any benefit to assist the other with an implementation. > It comes down to whether Gentoo is a "meta-distribution" with > absolutely amazing generic tooling (including portage), or "simply" a > source-based distribution with an arbitrary package format. I am suggesting Gentoo be the reference implementation, portage be the reference implementation of PMS. It should be limited by the developers not outsiders. I cannot explain why those who do portage development are not the PMS authors. As a developer, it seems something is off there. > PMS has tremendous value, and yes, EAPI is a process, and 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. EAPI is surely a process, I came across a EAPI=3D2 ebuild the other day, and still likely some EAPI=3D0 in tree. I would not consider EAPI to be a success by any means. It creates waves of "wheel spinning". Revising the internals of an ebuild for little to no gain. If I updated that EAPI=3D2 ebuild. The installed result would be no different. Given that fact, I see no benefit to EAPI=3D6 over EAPI=3D2. > Without knowing specifics I guess I would suggest to the original > poster to create new tooling for the job that needs to be done. Maybe > even a fork of portage, at first only used in your (derivative) > Gentoo distribution? Just my idea for a possible solution. I am not using a derived distributions. I am running Gentoo with a massive overlay due to the amount of packages not updated in tree. My overlay would not exist if I could have returned. I cannot improve from within thus I am limited to an overlay on top. But I am not running some other distro or making my own. I have warm and open offers to be part of Funtoo. None of my systems run that. All my systems, servers and workstations run Gentoo. Just with a massive overlay slapped on top. --=20 William L. Thomson Jr. --Sig_/Y8k61pkfSAeZkZi9oIZ4iM7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTEeldqZjmVut8bVHJNcbKkg6ozUAUCWZILHgAKCRBNcbKkg6oz ULEmAJ9mpqchfnUw4nwxDQey7czrc76jzQCgqN1vhLG5WPQC9Pf3KHeQng0Nt6E= =A6Iw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Y8k61pkfSAeZkZi9oIZ4iM7--