Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-22 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:31:44 +0100 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Now, I think we could wait even a bit more, but there is much interest | in seeing it complete so is natural that more people are willing to | help speeding up

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-22 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:20:47 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This I understand. However, your previous comments (and spb's saying he's busy with some other things) has made some people, myself included, wonder if you could possibly use some more help. We aren't talking about

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-21 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:28:51 +0100 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You forgot to mention that the small group is either a subset of the interested parties or is commissioned by them. Which doesn't appear to be the case here. Given that people wouldn't be working on it if they weren't

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:28:51 +0100 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You forgot to mention that the small group is either a subset of the | interested parties or is commissioned by them. Which doesn't appear to | be the case here. Sure it is. | Because there are a lot of people with

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:31:44 +0100 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Now, I think we could wait even a bit more, but there is much interest | in seeing it complete so is natural that more people are willing to | help speeding up at least the first release. The question is not whether they

EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote: Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on that.. No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm). http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/PMS Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote: | Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on | that.. | | No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm). |

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:49:56PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote: | Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on | that.. | | No,

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:13:54 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | So... how far a long are they? Better to say what we don't have: * descriptions of all those pesky little helper programs. * clarity and detail for certain sections. | Further, since this *is* something gentoo needs,

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status update on it in council this coming month. Right now I'm placing a higher priority on getting

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status update on it in council

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Danny van Dyk
Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Brian Harring: On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled notification); either way,

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:22:14 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Perhaps not all of the council; distinctly recall diego pushing about | it though. Quick look through council logs, robbat2 was asking about | timeline also (jan. meeting specifically). You've gotta ask *why* certain

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Daniel Robbins
Ciaran, Admittedly, I'm new to this PMS thing so in many cases I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, but I guess I need to jump in somewhere I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should strive for.

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:19:12 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability | between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should | strive for. If at all possible, I think that this standardization | effort should

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Daniel Robbins
OK, my initial impression of this is: 1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times I'd put the burden of compatibility on the

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:12:12 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | 1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and | can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts | can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times | I'd

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion so | that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to rest. *shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully conformant independent

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion | | so that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to | | rest. | |

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the result of a collaborative effort of representing members of the organization(s) that is (are) supposed to

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:47:04 +0100 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the | | Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the | result of a collaborative

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Daniel Robbins
Ciaran, Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have created so far? I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS, but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit concerned. -Daniel On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have | created so far? They can ask spb. If spb is convinced that they have something useful to contribute at this stage, and that they won't do something

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have created so far? I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS, but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Mike Doty
Brian Harring wrote: [snip] In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to *not* get a status update on it. We get status updates on it. it's pretty much it's not done, we don't want to show you every month. It's one of the things I intend to bring up at the march

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Brian Harring wrote: | [snip] | In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to | *not* get a status update on it. | | We get status updates on it. it's pretty much it's not done, we | don't want to show

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Mike Doty
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Brian Harring wrote: | [snip] | In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to | *not* get a status update on it. | | We get status updates on it. it's pretty much it's not done,

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Luca Barbato
Stephen Bennett wrote: At this stage, individuals can ask for a copy, or for read access to This stage is usually called early draft, the editor puts every input he deems useful in the first document and then he sends it for discussion once he is happy with it. So, no problems on this practice

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Alexander Færøy
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:10:51PM -0800, Mike Doty wrote: I was never offered this offer. If you read the emails by Ciaran you will see that he already offered the council members access to read the draft. -- Alexander Færøy Bugday Lead Alpha/IA64/MIPS Architecture Teams User Relations,

Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know that real standards aren't a free for all, right? They're usually written by a small group, and then commented on by interested parties when they're already well into being written. Which is exactly what we're doing... You forgot to