From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J3u48-0002cQ-Bx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:02:00 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBGE1MD0002891; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:01:22 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBGE1LOg002859 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:01:21 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176D065CCA for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:01:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.711 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.246, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40cPZU1saqUg for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8396579B for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J3u35-000472-RE for gentoo-project@gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:00:55 +0000 Received: from 82.153.79.81 ([82.153.79.81]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:00:55 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.153.79.81 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:00:55 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: PMS Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:05:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20071215132932.a8c33901.genone@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.79.81 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: d163576e-15f4-44a8-ac50-f963354ef962 X-Archives-Hash: cb0773c29bfdecb4324d92a369325ef7 Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:46:32 +0000 > Steve Long wrote: > >> The concern I have with this is that PMS as developed by an external >> team is now being seen as authoritative for the whole of Gentoo. > > No version of PMS is authorative until it actually gets approved, and > all existing versions are just drafts. And an approved version would be > a finished document, not a repository, so the location or who works on > it is meaningless in this regard, though it might have an effect on > which versions will eventually get approved. > Ah thanks for the clarification, genone. Makes me feel more relaxed about it, although I note that others are clearly taking the draft as authoritative. I hope there won't be backlash if people start writing ebuilds using new features, only for them not to be approved for the Gentoo PMS. There is no guarantee, aiui, that just because the Paludis guys have designed and implemented something and put it in the draft PMS hosted externally, it will be implemented, either in the same way or at all, in portage and pkgcore. That starts to cause dev mindshare issues, imo, and could lead to further acrimony later on down the line. It will surely lead to more disparaging comments about portage, as we have already seen. Personally I find them annoying simply because portage has built so many Gentoo systems, which we all use out of choice. -- gentoo-project@gentoo.org mailing list