I think Gentoo council, developers, and portage developers should consider changing the PMS, to something like Portage Manager Specification, or Gentoo Portage Specification. Make it Gentoo and portage specific, and others adhere to that standard.
I understand the rationale behind PMS. However there is really only 1 main package manager for Gentoo, portage. I am aware of pkgcore, though thought more of it was in C. I think pkgcore is still behind EAPI wise, so not at 6 yet. There is paludis, but it requires pretty heavy changes and does not seem to run along side of portage as it once did long ago. Not sure if anyone even has a system that has no portage installed. No emerge command etc. It seems a few times I have heard portage developers make comments about being limited by PMS. That seems odd. To me the PMS should be limited by portage, not the other way around. PMS should be based on portage. Then other package managers must change to comply with that specification. Rather than how things are now. I have no control or participate in either portage or PMS development. It is just an observation from having some needs. Which seems could happen with portage. But can only happen if in the PMS. Which itself is a process. Not sure in that case the PMS helps to expedite Gentoo development, and may hinder. Since portage can only do what PMS allows it to do. I think that should be reversed. This is not saying drop PMS, have no PMS, etc. Just reverse, free portage developers to do what they feel is needed for Gentoo. Then other package managers can adhere to that specification. Make it entirely internal and specific to Gentoo. The PMS seems pretty abstract and not specific to Gentoo. Why even bother with that? Why not Gentoo set its own standards for package management? It seems aspects of portage are used for things like Chrome OS and CoreOS, as well as parts of Gentoo. But seems more usage of portage and not other package managers. Why not make it the flagship? Portage be the standard, the specification/reference implementation and others comply. IMHO PMS should not hold back portage development, but portage development hold back the PMS. PMS based on portage, not vice versa. This will be my only post. Feel free to insult me, etc as you like. Just an idea for others to discuss. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgp6yzvpOm0cW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
