On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:07:22PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 +0000 Steve Long > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > | In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it > > > | isn't a pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communicate with > > > | ferringb) > > > b) they're more interested in replacing > > > the ebuild format > > > > Pure and absolute FUD; recall which project has added incompatible > > version extensions, which is dropping running *rm when reinstalling > > the same ver, which *still* doesn't actually implement overlay logic, > > leading to overlay authors having to copy master files into each > > overlay branch. > > Please have a look at our code before you make such claims.
Did. same cpv reinstall issue with *rm still is there. Incompatible version extension (-scm) is indisputable, and still is there. Other comments, such as not exporting SLOT still stand; one additional is not exporting the use conditional collapsed form of RESTRICT (yes, it supports use conditionals and must be exported). Those *are* changes to the format; the statements stand. Further, getting away from the daft FUD we're trying to 'replace the ebuild format' that was leveled. > Also have a look at our statements regarding overlays again. Overlays > can't be configure properly. Multiple repositories can. Nobody says > there should be no sharing between them, but it needs to be configured > by the user. master_repository is a new one added within the last two weeks; stand corrected. > > > And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package > > > manager specification? > > > > Wolf31o2 (chris) is releng moreso; one of the few folks doing > > non-trivial things with the profiles pretty much, with long term > > experience doing so. > > > > In that regard, he's one of a few handful of people who basically > > could be considered profile experts- further, he's a catalyst monkey, > > which at least currently, is the stage building method. > > He said there would be no need for infrastructure to be involved; a > claim i back. Nobody said Chris shouldn't be involved <snip> > Read again, he did not dismiss Chris, he dismissed the claim that > Infrastructure should send somebody to discuss the package manager > standard. SRC_URI restrictions (port, protocol, etc) are one angle of why at least poking them matters- really depends upon what PMS is going to address, standalone spec, or gentoos form- if the latter, then port/protocol restrictions apply, if the former then those restrictions need to wind up somewher as an extension of the spec. Re: dismissing chris being seperate from dismissing infra, yep, misinterpretted the phrasing- still would suggest hauling in one of the actual profile/catalyst monkeys however since some of the stuff they have in there aren't well documented. ~harring
pgpdS0QlutzWW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
