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 1J3uSe-0003pB-G0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:27:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBGER328028932; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:27:03 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 lBGER2Fu028927 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:27:02 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B0865C01 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:27:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.712 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.712 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.245, 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 8ALT9MM2+kiz for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:26:55 +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 07BC765BE4 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J3uS0-00027i-HY for gentoo-project@gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:26:40 +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 14:26:40 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.153.79.81 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:26:40 +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 14:31:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1197736248l.20970l.1l@spike> 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: 315f931e-31a3-48d0-b3fc-6f868fe118fa X-Archives-Hash: c128577ae53eb9e3703a19fc84c678bb Roy Bamford wrote: > Steve, > > The offical package manager is portage. If another package manager does > something different to portage - even if it fixes a bug in portage, by > definition, its not compliant. > I take it as the spec is what portage is /supposed/ to do, assuming no bugs. That's not hard to quantify, since portage normally works pretty well (you get an occasional testing release that introduces a bug or regression, which is to be expected) and the portage team know what it's supposed to do, and are forthcoming to other projects. The only bug I've found that annoys me, and hasn't been fixed, is the one where it doesn't pick up that a blocking package is about to be updated before the blockee, so the block will no longer apply. This is easy for a user to spot, so it's easy for a script to fix, and we implemented that workaround in update months ago. I'm totally happy with portage and trust its dev team. I know full well that 2.2 is in the works and have no issue waiting for it to get here, as in the meantime portage has worked reliably, as the install base shows. > The exisiting PMS have been arrived at by documenting what portage > does, which is itself a moving target. > No PMS is likely to be endorsed until Portage stays still long enough > to document it, check it and ratifiy it, unless some arbitary portage > version is chosen to document. > I think we should talk more about EAPI than PMS. That's what ebuild devs work to, a BASH api to the most part, with specification of how strings are composed and what they mean to the PM. > Any such PMS won't be very useful, as portage will have moved on > meanwhile. A PMS will only be useful when its adopted and maintained by > the portage devs, when portage will become a reference inplementaion of > the spec. I don't see that happening, since they don't need such a > document. > I agree that the EAPI is not fixed until it's agreed and implemented by portage. The PMS thing seems extraneous to Gentoo needs atm; it's more to enable other projects to interoperate with the tree. It certainly wasn't needed for pkgcore imo. -- gentoo-project@gentoo.org mailing list