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 1J4HXZ-0005x7-QY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBHF5Sj0031448; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:28 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 lBHF5QKk031418 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:27 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B274665626 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 1.085 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.085 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.797, BAYES_40=-0.185, 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 rt+lnPin12cs for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:18 +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 249DF6515E for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:05:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J4HWF-0000mu-OL for gentoo-project@gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:04:35 +0000 Received: from 91.84.105.236 ([91.84.105.236]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:04:35 +0000 Received: from slong by 91.84.105.236 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:04:35 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: Re: PMS Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:09:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1197736248l.20970l.1l@spike> <20071216162713.2d4b7266@blueyonder.co.uk> <1197895374.10935.70.camel@liasis.inforead.com> 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: 91.84.105.236 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 0ec0205c-850e-422b-a77b-f5c081dc3ecc X-Archives-Hash: 264f57b3bbb95d592ad0571144b55707 Ferris McCormick wrote: > PMS is a specification and is useful for anyone who > works with packages, regardless of package manager. Or for any new > portage developers for that matter. It's easier for everyone if the > behavior of any package manager you choose (portage or pkgcore or > paludis or ...) is defined by a specification rather than by just what > the code does. > I agree 100% that the EAPI ebuild authors can expect should be documented and specified precisely. The concern was over process, as to whether the stance has changed wrt the PMS hosted on Gentoo infra being the "authorised" version. >> Having a spec isn't an issue: the issue is having it developed as a >> mainstream Gentoo project, with open discussion. Frankly you're not very >> good at that, in so far as your manner does not invite discussion; you've >> made it quite clear that you think many of the devs (whose work your >> project relies on), let alone the users, are "idiots". >> > I don't know that it matters where it comes from; what matters is that > it is correct. I understand that this statement probably puts me on the > fringe. > Certainly correctness is vital. Wrt to discussing future changes, the manner in which that is done matters too, imo. As genone pointed out, it won't be authorised until the Council approve it, so my main concern is alleviated. -- gentoo-project@gentoo.org mailing list