On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 12:10:40PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > Just two points: > > - standards should not be set by the primary package manager > - the primary package manager does not have to be developed by Gentoo. > > More about it below: > > maillog: 20/05/2006-14:54:18(+0200): Paul de Vrieze types > > The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the > > standards for the tree. All ebuilds in the tree must function > > with the primary package manager. As the primary package manager > > sets the standard it does not have to maintain compatibility with > > other package managers. > > I personally hate the way this sounds. It implies that the package > manager comes before the standards while it should be the other way > around. Plus, it would not solve the main problem -- that there are no > set standards for the tree. You accept the GLEP like this and there will > continue to be no standards.
<snipping lots of good reasons about why implementation should not define standards> So... where's the standard? :) Right, no doc yet that's official, thus at this juncture, what's there now (portage) is the effective standard. Said in the last thread, chunking out a formal EAPI=0 definition from the tree/portage implementation, tiz a good thing. But until that's done (and folks agree it's the standard), portage (primary manager) rules, thus doc it out (as I've suggested to ciaran for the slot value and use/slot dep restrictions he's added) if you're after changing the existing definition. Not saying I like it, but it's the reality of current situation- the intention of the glep is to prevent lock in, and to keep the tree unified in terms of support (avoid fracturing of the env the tree has been written against), either a doc standard is created for EAPI=0, or portage defines the standard (since it's primary). > The process should go like this: > > 1. Standars are set (by the council or whatever). > 2. They are implemented in the official package manager. > 3. Other package managers follow suit. Council really shouldn't be involved sans big changes imo, and big changes imo should require gleps (both from an archive standpoint, and from fitting the council in via existing process of gleps). One concern out of all of this is ensuring that their isn't ping/ponging back and forth as to which manager is 'official'; arms race in terms of features supported by each manager is a good thing imo, but need to keep that from causing chaos for devs in terms of changing standards. ~harring
pgpa1x9wBpjMZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
