Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
So you're saying the GLEP's of no use until Portage supports them, but
Portage can't support them until you say yes to the GLEP...
I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have
other official package managers approved before accepting the GLEP.
I'm not sure that implementation of new features in portage or official
status for other package managers needs to be a condition for acceptance
of this GLEP. The council's main concern was that there wasn't a
clearly defined immediate need for the GLEP so it was sensible to defer
it. That isn't an unreasonable suggestion.
Would it be more constructive to create a list of new
features/capabilities that depend on this GLEP. For each I'd define:
1. The feature/unmet need.
2. Why it can't be done or can only be done poorly without the new GLEP.
3. When we're likely to see the feature become available assuming the
GLEP were approved.
4. What package managers are likely to implement it. (Ie their
maintainers endorse the need.
It sounds like this list might already have some items on it - so why
not document them?
If the council wants to avoid approving the GLSA for a merely
theoretical need they might offer to endorse the idea but delay it
pending the implementation of one or more of the new features in one,
two, or all three major package managers, or pending support by portage.
That would give developers some assurance that they wouldn't waste
time going down a road only to be shot down later.
It is good for the well-being of Gentoo that the council be relatively
conservative with regard to potentially-disruptive decisions. They
simply want to see that the benefits outweigh the costs. So, just show
them the benefits. At some point the case for going forward outweighs
the reluctance to do so.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
