[gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

Hello,

I'm pretty sure I've proposed this before, but I'm not sure whether it
was to the mailing lists, or a smaller group of people.  However, a few
years have passed since, people have changed, maybe it's time to try
again.

I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".

Why?  To say it lightly, the current name has negative connotations.  To
say it strongly, it sounds like an immature joke gone too far.

The rename should serve the interest of being inclusive and respective,
and at the same have little to no negative consequences.  The name
"EAPI" is widely recognized within Gentoo, and probably better known
outside of Gentoo than via the "PMS" name.  If anything, search engine
results for "EAPI" at least include something relevant within the top
finds.

WDYT?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 512 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Maciej Barć]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1636 bytes --]

In 2023 I had made a presentation about Gentoo in Racket for the Racket 
Fest. I think some attendees looked at me in a weird way when I said 
"[...] implementing support for parsing PMS in Racket [...]". Only some 
more time after I discovered why that they might have thought.

> I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".

Yup, better than "PMS".

Sadly PMS suffers form the exact same issue as GIMP and I do not think 
that renaming to similar - eg. **G**PMS or PMS**F** will help :( (F - 
for "format" used in Racket library implementation of the parser).

W dniu 8.11.2024 o 16:25, Michał Górny pisze:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've proposed this before, but I'm not sure whether it
> was to the mailing lists, or a smaller group of people.  However, a few
> years have passed since, people have changed, maybe it's time to try
> again.
> 
> I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".
> 
> Why?  To say it lightly, the current name has negative connotations.  To
> say it strongly, it sounds like an immature joke gone too far.
> 
> The rename should serve the interest of being inclusive and respective,
> and at the same have little to no negative consequences.  The name
> "EAPI" is widely recognized within Gentoo, and probably better known
> outside of Gentoo than via the "PMS" name.  If anything, search engine
> results for "EAPI" at least include something relevant within the top
> finds.
> 
> WDYT?
> 

-- 
Have a great day!

~ Maciej Barć

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Xgqt
9B0A 4C5D 02A3 B43C 9D6F D6B1 14D7 4A1F 43A6 AC3C


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 16315 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Ulrich Müller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1749 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2024, Michał Górny wrote:

> I'm pretty sure I've proposed this before, but I'm not sure whether it
> was to the mailing lists, or a smaller group of people.  However, a few
> years have passed since, people have changed, maybe it's time to try
> again.

> I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".

> Why?  To say it lightly, the current name has negative connotations.  To
> say it strongly, it sounds like an immature joke gone too far.

> The rename should serve the interest of being inclusive and respective,
> and at the same have little to no negative consequences.  The name
> "EAPI" is widely recognized within Gentoo, and probably better known
> outside of Gentoo than via the "PMS" name.  If anything, search engine
> results for "EAPI" at least include something relevant within the top
> finds.

> WDYT?

First of all (and as I already said on IRC), I am a little surprised
that you raise this on the general mailing list, without first
discussing it within the project.

A previous discussion on the subject was in [1]. There were only three
replies, two of which didn't see an issue with the name. That said,
I wouldn't be strongly opposed to renaming (as I had brought it up
myself in 2013), but IMHO there's not much of a point to it, and
updating everything including external references would be quite some
work. For example, Portage has dozens of references to the name,
including variable names, the name of a cache format, and references
in its documentation.

Also, do we have any evidence that the name was meant as an "immature
joke"?

Ulrich

[1] https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/21053.44313.172395.464187@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1980 bytes --]

Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 5188335088415E2E Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org>]]
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2024, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure I've proposed this before, but I'm not sure whether it
>> was to the mailing lists, or a smaller group of people.  However, a few
>> years have passed since, people have changed, maybe it's time to try
>> again.
>
>> I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".
>
>> Why?  To say it lightly, the current name has negative connotations.  To
>> say it strongly, it sounds like an immature joke gone too far.
>
>> The rename should serve the interest of being inclusive and respective,
>> and at the same have little to no negative consequences.  The name
>> "EAPI" is widely recognized within Gentoo, and probably better known
>> outside of Gentoo than via the "PMS" name.  If anything, search engine
>> results for "EAPI" at least include something relevant within the top
>> finds.
>
>> WDYT?
>
> First of all (and as I already said on IRC), I am a little surprised
> that you raise this on the general mailing list, without first
> discussing it within the project.
>
> A previous discussion on the subject was in [1]. There were only three
> replies, two of which didn't see an issue with the name. That said,
> I wouldn't be strongly opposed to renaming (as I had brought it up
> myself in 2013), but IMHO there's not much of a point to it, and
> updating everything including external references would be quite some
> work. For example, Portage has dozens of references to the name,
> including variable names, the name of a cache format, and references
> in its documentation.
>
> Also, do we have any evidence that the name was meant as an "immature
> joke"?

The original post says "sounds like" - which IMO it does - but that, to
me, does not imply intent was being attributed.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[James Le Cuirot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

On Fri, 2024-11-08 at 16:25 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've proposed this before, but I'm not sure whether it
> was to the mailing lists, or a smaller group of people.  However, a few
> years have passed since, people have changed, maybe it's time to try
> again.
> 
> I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".
> 
> Why?  To say it lightly, the current name has negative connotations.  To
> say it strongly, it sounds like an immature joke gone too far.
> 
> The rename should serve the interest of being inclusive and respective,
> and at the same have little to no negative consequences.  The name
> "EAPI" is widely recognized within Gentoo, and probably better known
> outside of Gentoo than via the "PMS" name.  If anything, search engine
> results for "EAPI" at least include something relevant within the top
> finds.
> 
> WDYT?

It's not like the thought had never crossed my mind, but I never saw it as a
problem, and I didn't believe the reference was intentional. I can see how
others might perceive it that way though, regardless of whether it was
intentional or not, and that could put people off contributing.

In my mind, I considered EAPI to be a part of PMS rather than the whole of it,
but I'm happy to revise my thinking.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 858 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1269 bytes --]

Hi!

Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:

> I'm pretty sure I've proposed this before, but I'm not sure whether it
> was to the mailing lists, or a smaller group of people.  However, a few
> years have passed since, people have changed, maybe it's time to try
> again.
>
> I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".
>
> Why?  To say it lightly, the current name has negative connotations.  To
> say it strongly, it sounds like an immature joke gone too far.
>
> The rename should serve the interest of being inclusive and respective,
> and at the same have little to no negative consequences.  The name
> "EAPI" is widely recognized within Gentoo, and probably better known
> outside of Gentoo than via the "PMS" name.  If anything, search engine
> results for "EAPI" at least include something relevant within the top
> finds.
>
> WDYT?

I agree.  The name "EAPI" seems okay even if, strictly speaking,
incorrect.  That's also how we reference the applicable version of the
specification in ebuilds.

WRT whether "PMS" is a bad joke, I have no reason to believe it isn't
(even if never said out loud), nor that it is, but I do know that, in
either case, it does cause (at least) confusion.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Ulrich Müller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1101 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024, Arsen Arsenović wrote:

> I agree.  The name "EAPI" seems okay even if, strictly speaking,
> incorrect.

So we would replace an accurate name by an incorrect one, and we would
lose the distinction between the name of the spec and the name of the
ebuild API.

I was briefly thinking about something like "Ebuild specification".
Then again, while most of PMS is about the ebuild format, some parts
of it are about other aspects of the repository (e.g. profiles and
metadata cache) or the package manager.

> That's also how we reference the applicable version of the
> specification in ebuilds.

That's not entirely correct either. For example, an ebuild may reference
EAPI 7 which is defined in PMS version 8_p20210613.

> WRT whether "PMS" is a bad joke, I have no reason to believe it isn't
> (even if never said out loud), nor that it is, but I do know that, in
> either case, it does cause (at least) confusion.

Most acronyms have multiple meanings. I don't think that the full term
"Package Manager Specification" causes confusion.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[James Le Cuirot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --]

On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 06:24 +0100, Ulrich Müller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2024, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> 
> > I agree.  The name "EAPI" seems okay even if, strictly speaking,
> > incorrect.
> 
> So we would replace an accurate name by an incorrect one, and we would
> lose the distinction between the name of the spec and the name of the
> ebuild API.
> 
> I was briefly thinking about something like "Ebuild specification".
> Then again, while most of PMS is about the ebuild format, some parts
> of it are about other aspects of the repository (e.g. profiles and
> metadata cache) or the package manager.
> 
> > That's also how we reference the applicable version of the
> > specification in ebuilds.
> 
> That's not entirely correct either. For example, an ebuild may reference
> EAPI 7 which is defined in PMS version 8_p20210613.
> 
> > WRT whether "PMS" is a bad joke, I have no reason to believe it isn't
> > (even if never said out loud), nor that it is, but I do know that, in
> > either case, it does cause (at least) confusion.
> 
> Most acronyms have multiple meanings. I don't think that the full term
> "Package Manager Specification" causes confusion.

How about referring to it as PM Spec? Shortened to pmspec? It's just as easy
to say.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 858 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Matthew Marchese]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1459 bytes --]

On 11/10/24 10:44, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 06:24 +0100, Ulrich Müller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>>> I agree.  The name "EAPI" seems okay even if, strictly speaking,
>>> incorrect.
>> So we would replace an accurate name by an incorrect one, and we would
>> lose the distinction between the name of the spec and the name of the
>> ebuild API.
>>
>> I was briefly thinking about something like "Ebuild specification".
>> Then again, while most of PMS is about the ebuild format, some parts
>> of it are about other aspects of the repository (e.g. profiles and
>> metadata cache) or the package manager.
>>
>>> That's also how we reference the applicable version of the
>>> specification in ebuilds.
>> That's not entirely correct either. For example, an ebuild may reference
>> EAPI 7 which is defined in PMS version 8_p20210613.
>>
>>> WRT whether "PMS" is a bad joke, I have no reason to believe it isn't
>>> (even if never said out loud), nor that it is, but I do know that, in
>>> either case, it does cause (at least) confusion.
>> Most acronyms have multiple meanings. I don't think that the full term
>> "Package Manager Specification" causes confusion.
> How about referring to it as PM Spec? Shortened to pmspec? It's just as easy
> to say.

"Package Manager Specification"sounds very good to me, although I probably don't hold much weight in 
this discussion...


[-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2871 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 23807 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Maciej Barć]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1608 bytes --]

> How about referring to it as PM Spec? Shortened to pmspec? It's just as easy
> to say.

+1 from me!

W dniu 10.11.2024 o 11:44, James Le Cuirot pisze:
> On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 06:24 +0100, Ulrich Müller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>>
>>> I agree.  The name "EAPI" seems okay even if, strictly speaking,
>>> incorrect.
>>
>> So we would replace an accurate name by an incorrect one, and we would
>> lose the distinction between the name of the spec and the name of the
>> ebuild API.
>>
>> I was briefly thinking about something like "Ebuild specification".
>> Then again, while most of PMS is about the ebuild format, some parts
>> of it are about other aspects of the repository (e.g. profiles and
>> metadata cache) or the package manager.
>>
>>> That's also how we reference the applicable version of the
>>> specification in ebuilds.
>>
>> That's not entirely correct either. For example, an ebuild may reference
>> EAPI 7 which is defined in PMS version 8_p20210613.
>>
>>> WRT whether "PMS" is a bad joke, I have no reason to believe it isn't
>>> (even if never said out loud), nor that it is, but I do know that, in
>>> either case, it does cause (at least) confusion.
>>
>> Most acronyms have multiple meanings. I don't think that the full term
>> "Package Manager Specification" causes confusion.
> 
> How about referring to it as PM Spec? Shortened to pmspec? It's just as easy
> to say.

-- 
Have a great day!

~ Maciej Barć

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Xgqt
9B0A 4C5D 02A3 B43C 9D6F D6B1 14D7 4A1F 43A6 AC3C


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 16315 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Sam James]

James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 06:24 +0100, Ulrich Müller wrote:
>> > > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2024, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>> 
>> > I agree.  The name "EAPI" seems okay even if, strictly speaking,
>> > incorrect.
>> 
>> So we would replace an accurate name by an incorrect one, and we would
>> lose the distinction between the name of the spec and the name of the
>> ebuild API.
>> 
>> I was briefly thinking about something like "Ebuild specification".
>> Then again, while most of PMS is about the ebuild format, some parts
>> of it are about other aspects of the repository (e.g. profiles and
>> metadata cache) or the package manager.
>> 
>> > That's also how we reference the applicable version of the
>> > specification in ebuilds.
>> 
>> That's not entirely correct either. For example, an ebuild may reference
>> EAPI 7 which is defined in PMS version 8_p20210613.
>> 
>> > WRT whether "PMS" is a bad joke, I have no reason to believe it isn't
>> > (even if never said out loud), nor that it is, but I do know that, in
>> > either case, it does cause (at least) confusion.
>> 
>> Most acronyms have multiple meanings. I don't think that the full term
>> "Package Manager Specification" causes confusion.
>
> How about referring to it as PM Spec? Shortened to pmspec? It's just as easy
> to say.

I think that might be a decent compromise, even just "the spec" will
work casually.

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 9:32 AM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 06:24 +0100, Ulrich Müller wrote:
> >> Most acronyms have multiple meanings. I don't think that the full term
> >> "Package Manager Specification" causes confusion.
> >
> > How about referring to it as PM Spec? Shortened to pmspec? It's just as easy
> > to say.
>
> I think that might be a decent compromise, even just "the spec" will
> work casually.
>

++

It also makes for an easy transition since it will be fairly clear
that older documentation refers to the same thing.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Ulrich Müller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024, Sam James wrote:

> James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> writes:
>> How about referring to it as PM Spec? Shortened to pmspec? It's just
>> as easy to say.

> I think that might be a decent compromise, even just "the spec" will
> work casually.

I have no problem with that, as long as we don't have to rename the
repo, mail alias, mailing list, IRC channel, Bugzilla component,
variable names in Portage, and whatnot.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [Rehash] Renaming "PMS" into "EAPI"

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 509 bytes --]

> 
> I'd like to propose renaming our "PMS" document into "EAPI".
> 
> Why?  To say it lightly, the current name has negative connotations.  To
> say it strongly, it sounds like an immature joke gone too far.
> 

+1 for finding some other solution.

Whether it was originally meant in earnest and out of a lack of knowledge 
or as a joke in the end does not really matter.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]