Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 04:13 +0000, 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
