Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 + Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um I put it badly, sorry (i've had the flu) - I meant Chris in his capacity of releng, catalyst etc. You only want to review, np. ++ to moving ahead. And if he'd like to do so, I'll be happy to give him access to it. The PMS will presumably be the definitive statement of what should happen for *all* gentoo PMs, and it so happens that the people who are doing it are mostly paludis devs, and sorry it won't be ready til Paludis is. pfft. Noone said that. At present the only people working on it are also working on Paludis, but that can change should people take an interest. As for it won't be ready til Paludis is, that's not what was stated -- what ciaranm said was that his personal priority will switch to getting PMS finished once paludis is ready. That doesn't mean that other people can't work on it and finish it before that, and I for one currently have PMS above Paludis on my priorities list and don't intend to wait for the latter. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 04:13 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | and Gianelloni for the infrastructure. And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package manager specification? Especially considering that I am not an infrastructure guy. I'll be honest. I'm not concerned personally with the *contents* of the package manager specification, since I know it will end up being reviewed by many. What I am mostly concerned with is making sure that we're moving forward as efficiently as possible. I want this spec so we can all get cracking on making everything support it. The contents itself I leave to more capable hands. I'll be reviewing it when it is released, but that's only just to assist in the process. Um I put it badly, sorry (i've had the flu) - I meant Chris in his capacity of releng, catalyst etc. You only want to review, np. ++ to moving ahead. And yeah, ferringb had it right- it was about having several perspectives on this rather than just paludis devs. And irrespective of whether bug-wranglers have much to say, I'd still want them involved, as they deal with the ebuild bugs. As such they could well have ideas or viewpoints which would help. Even if they don't, it's how I'd do it for any software development project- not having testing/ QA/ bug fixers involved would leave me uneasy. The PMS will presumably be the definitive statement of what should happen for *all* gentoo PMs, and it so happens that the people who are doing it are mostly paludis devs, and sorry it won't be ready til Paludis is. pfft. I don't buy the stuff about needing the so-called independent implementation sorry. ``What people think is allowed rather than what is?'' The spec defines what is allowed. Period. Further, I don't recollect any discussion about needing an independent implementation when this was first mooted, and spb took it on. Or am I wrong- was it in fact understood that the spec would need paludis before it could be considered correct? And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that? Like I said, tho, I'm happy if the council is. Although I'm starting to worry at the increasingly poisonous atmosphere, and that devs are leaving. Flameeyes was on the council, no? It concerns me that this atmosphere is just intimidating people simply because no one feels confident to stand up to abusive bullying. Personally, I'd like to see ferringb and zmedico's take on what the PMS should be. (Not that they want to do it.) I sincerely doubt it would take them anything like as long ;) BTW if i preface a statement with `personally' that means it's just my gut feeling. It doesn't mean that I think it /has/ to be done like that. Sorry to explain the obvious.. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 + Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like I said, tho, I'm happy if the council is. Although I'm starting to worry at the increasingly poisonous atmosphere, and that devs are leaving. Flameeyes was on the council, no? It concerns me that this atmosphere is just intimidating people simply because no one feels confident to stand up to abusive bullying. Diego left because he was simply burnt out, as suggested by his many blog posts. As for the poisonous atmosphere - I don't know, I feel very good among the developers, and am still enjoying working on the tree just like on the day I joined. Don't let few loud flamers ruin your day. Kind regards, -- Andrej Ticho Kacian ticho at gentoo dot org Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 + Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And irrespective of whether bug-wranglers have much to say, I'd still want them involved, as they deal with the ebuild bugs. As such they could well have ideas or viewpoints which would help. Even if they don't, it's how I'd do it for any software development project- not having testing/ QA/ bug fixers involved would leave me uneasy. bug-wranglers don't really have much to do with QA, their main job is just to assign bugs to the right people, and that doesn't have anything to do with a package manager specification (at most you could argue about the metadata.xml format, but even that is a long shot). I don't buy the stuff about needing the so-called independent implementation sorry. ``What people think is allowed rather than what is?'' The spec defines what is allowed. Period. Thing is that if you only have a single implementation it's much easier for errors to slip by due to implicit assumptions. Unless you write a full compliance testsuite ... And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that? Which implementation exactly? Portage isn't frozen, the behavioris more less constantly changing. Another issue are the things that just work by accident or only exist for legacy reasons, you don't really want those in a formal spec aimed at future developments. Also in general it's easier to extend a spec than to restrict it later on, no matter what the spec is about. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
