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. If at all possible, I think that this standardization effort should be "multi-lateral" in the sense that Gentoo and pkgcore are also active participants in the standardization process. Also, I don't think that the council itself needs to be involved directly, as a standards/spec project can be created and worked on, and the conformance of Portage to this standard can be measured, and if desired Portage developers can tweak portage so that it is more conformant to this standard. This can be done voluntarily by all parties, as they deem it useful. The goal would be to have the ability to measure a package manager's behavior against a known standard, rather than force a certain package manager to behave a certain way. I would expect that the general concern for interoperability within the Gentoo community will encourage package manager developers to work towards resolving any interoperability problems that do exist. I think standardization should focus on real interoperability issues, rather than esoteric technical issues. I think a good way to start would be to create some kind of test/regression suite in the portage tree that can be used to measure the package manager's functionality. Some stuff would be of an obvious pass/fail nature but other things can be couched in more subjective terms - like "will unmerge device nodes - yes/no " That at least would allow us to measure where we are in terms of interoperability, and identify future areas of improvement. Like I said, I'm just getting familiar with all this but those are my thoughts. -Daniel On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 people are so keen on pushing it through... Perhaps if they explained why they needed it in such a hurry we would prioritise it differently. | > Several council member have access to it - including me - and | > are quite confident about what is already done. | | 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 implementation, personally. So that more or less means that for me, PMS will become a priority at around the same time that Paludis 1.0_pre is released. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
-- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
