Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On 08/14/2017 03:39 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. >> wrote: >>> >>> Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On 2017-08-16 05:56, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Considering it says exactly the same for EAPI 5, this is almost > > certainly a mistake - but I'd rather confirm this here before > > changing the page. > Unfortunately, information about EAPI 4 and 5 support is not entirely > clear from the NEWS

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Marek Szuba wrote: > On 2017-08-14 23:46, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> pkgcore - does not support EAPI 6, only experimental EAPI 5 > Side note - according to > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Package_Manager_Specification > pkgcore has supported EAPI 6 since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On 2017-08-14 23:46, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > pkgcore - does not support EAPI 6, only experimental EAPI 5 Side note - according to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Package_Manager_Specification pkgcore has supported EAPI 6 since version 0.9.3. Considering it says exactly the same

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On pon, 2017-08-14 at 18:39 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > > wrote: > > > > > > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > > > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is > > debate on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:55:02 -0500 > Gordon Pettey wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Alexander Berntsen > > wrote: > > > > > While the PMS perhaps hasn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is debate > on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug request and > makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and PMS

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:55:02 -0500 Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:50 AM, 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:09:15 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > > I am sure > > that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from > > PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > I cannot explain why those who do portage development are not the PMS > authors. > Have you considered asking them? -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:42:21 + Peter Stuge wrote: > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > 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. > Honestly, I've yet to see any portage developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:50 AM, 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. > Also, how many

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

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. -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander signature.asc Description:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:05:00PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > 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