On 08/15/2013 04:56 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 14 August 2013 21:41, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general >>>>>>>> progress in gentoo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works >>>>>> >>>>>> You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that >>>>>> question... >>>>> >>>>> Well no >>> >>>> exactly >>> >>> Stop it. Now. >>> >>> gentoo-dev is a list for technical topics, so please take your >>> personal quarrels elsewhere. >>> >>> Ulrich >>> >>> >> >> Why don't you respond to my technical points then? PMS is blocking >> progress, again, because it does not reflect reality. >> >> I don't even see a reason why we should keep up that effort. >> > > Because if you want to allow multiple package managers as an option,
If - but why would we do that? > then you need to have a clearly defined spec for them. The fact that > portage implemented something > that is not part of PMS, is not a PMS problem. It is a problem in the cases where portage had a feature *before* PMS was defined, and then PMS tries to ignore it (see my last mail) It is a problem when PMS does not define the configuration, so two PMS-compatible programs can arrive at opposite results for any operation. (Why does PMS not define config? Well, then paludis would have a problem) > So unless it becomes > part of PMS, it can't be used in places where you expect PMS > compliance. Unless PMS reflects reality it serves no purpose but ego stroking and supressing deviant ideas that some people call "progress" > If you want PMS to go away, and call portage the one-and-true PM for > Gentoo, then it's probably something for the Council to decide. > De facto it is like that - if it doesn't work with portage it gets fixed, masked and/or removed. Using anything else might work, or not, but it also removes you from support (e.g. #gentoo, bugs.gentoo.org (any maintainer is free to ignore or RESO INVA bugs that are not filed with portage) and so on) Claiming that the absence of a written policy invalidates reality is a rather amusing theory that makes little sense.
