On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 06:37 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Nor are most Gentoo projects controlled by Gentoo. Try asking for a new > feature in Portage sometime if you think that Gentoo has any say over > how projects are developed...
Uhh... Bug #167667 Bug #167668 Just because the features that you ask for aren't done, don't mean features aren't added on request. Sure, my feature requests are much simpler than "add some new ability to dependency resolution" to implement, but they prove the point that no matter how much bitching and whining people do, the portage team *is* responsive and does fill requests in a timely manner. It's even easier if you provide patches. The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, I have no idea. While the current PMS project is not what we asked for and *is* outside the scope of Gentoo, due to our wishing to still *have* a specification of EAPI=0, we are wanting to look at other possibilities for getting one done. What the Council is interested in is a specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible package manager. At this point, I don't give a damn who writes it or what implementation, if any, matches it 100%. I am pretty sure it'll be *very* close to current portage functionality, side-effects and bugs excluded, of course. We asked for a specification. If the PMS team is unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under the terms we asked for it, we're going to pursue other options. We can't control PMS< but we also don't have to sit around and do nothing to reach the Council's goal of an approved specification for EAPI=0, a goal which I believe some people lost sight of some time ago. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
