From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5768D13877A for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CA08E0991; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68429E097E for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.10.112] (unknown [195.254.219.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bernalex) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AC7C34004B for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53DB7F42.4010609@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:51:30 +0200 From: Alexander Berntsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 References: <21463.26330.847055.224071@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <53DA69DA.8020000@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: d660ce19-781c-45d8-b3a7-920bdddbc4f8 X-Archives-Hash: 58745b0935671686fcf36941bc9d5132 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Rich, I'm going to reply in a slightly reversed order -- bear with me! On 01/08/14 02:34, Rich Freeman wrote: > So, this is more than just a portage design question, and I think > it is fair for the Council to take up. Obviously the feelings of > the portage maintainers should be carefully considered. Dynamic dependencies are not specified. As such, this is in fact a bug rather than a question of design. If you want to talk design, I invite you to do this in #gentoo-portage or on the gentoo-portage-dev mailing list. Personally, I am slightly surprised by the reactions and uproar this bug fix has caused. At my day job, we commend each other for fixing bugs, and express gratefulness for the effort. On that note I would like to express my esteem for Michał, and the work he has put in here. I know he has worked many hours with finding the least intrusive possible fix for this bug. Thanks, Michał! > So, I realize there is a bit of a fine line in the > telling-contributors-how-to-contribute department here. To some > extent how portage is developed is up to the portage project > (though anybody who wants to could always fork it and add yet > another package manager to the tree). > > What really does fall into the Council's domain strongly is PMS and > tree policy. If we have the tree target a package manger that > does not support dynamic dependencies, then we would want to do > revbumps anytime dependencies change (new virtuals, eclass > upgrades, etc). If we target a package manager that does do dynamic > dependencies then we probably would want to forbid revbumps on such > changes, which of course would tend to break things for anybody > using a package manager that didn't support dynamic dependencies. I appreciate that PMS and tree policy is important. PMS does not specify dynamic dependencies. This means that if Portage uses dynamic dependencies, and tree hackers rely on this behaviour, we are needlessly making life difficult for users of other package managers. Consequently, Portage should strive to follow the PMS's intention as closely as possible. If you want to do some work on formulating how dependencies are handled, please use the gentoo-pms mailing list. Tree policy, I'm afraid, has to adapt to Portage; not the other way around. The Portage team is too small to be "bossed around" or "take orders". That's just the way things are right now. But we follow the PMS as closely as we are able to. Contributions are of course always welcome. > So, not trying to take a position pro/con in this email. I just > wanted to state that I think this is something with wide-ranging > impact and more than just a portage issue. It has impact. We, the Portage team, appreciate this and will do our best to be cooperative in the transitional phase. - -- Alexander bernalex@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlPbf0IACgkQRtClrXBQc7XKPAEAqVPLmVWpekj8qhEeSMSUTM3F mgKlGHa3Ph+ZuWmWzxcA/1Nj7fT+FHG+ieCE9r6pKJuL7tmcNN5LZpkdlrjVHf+j =p4+U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----