Alexander Berntsen wrote: > While the PMS perhaps hasn't been an unequivocal success, it's still a > good effort with some success. I would be disappointed to see the > proposed change, and view it as a bad sign for Gentoo.
As far as technical documentation about how ebuilds work (the core of Gentoo, but also many other distributions; I have created several of my own), PMS is an absolutely amazing document! It comes down to whether Gentoo is a "meta-distribution" with absolutely amazing generic tooling (including portage), or "simply" a source-based distribution with an arbitrary package format. PMS has tremendous value, and yes, EAPI is a process, and I am sure that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are all better off for it. Without knowing specifics I guess I would suggest to the original poster to create new tooling for the job that needs to be done. Maybe even a fork of portage, at first only used in your (derivative) Gentoo distribution? Just my idea for a possible solution. //Peter
