On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:16:25 -0700 "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in > most cases I would support that assertion) > who would fix them? The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt > the council is going to *force* them to accept said > patches. Is QA going to fix these bugs?
If PMS has official standing, the maintainer will. > > Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage > > that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by > > PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... > > Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break > existing packages > that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion > that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software" Only in cases where Portage's behaviour is unspecifiable. > That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt > you can compel him to comply with PMS > 100% unless this is driven by developers themselves. He (not unlike > me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow. Please explain how deliberately and knowingly breaking existing ebuilds without bothering to work out the consequences, and refusing to fix it with the hope that no-one will notice is pragmatic. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
