Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:38:33 +0100 as excerpted: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:53:37 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Don't you see this way of handling things, with such and obscure way of >> getting things accepted for every EAPI is really hurting us? > > What is hurting is people demanding features without specifying what the > problem is, how it will be solved or what the impact on users or > developers will be, and then taking up everyone's time with complaints > when they don't get magical flying unicorns instantly. > > If you want something, you either have to do the work yourself, or find > someone to do it. And here's the thing: you're assuming that "the work" > is trivial, which for some of the things you're discussing it really > isn't. The PMS wording is the trivial bit that comes at the end once the > problem and solution have been worked out.
Without weighing in on either side of the technical details of this debate, it's possible to observe two things: 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't endear you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject an argument simply because it comes from you. 2) PMS is supposed to be about specifying things well enough that all three PMs can implement compatible ebuild/eclass/etc interpretation and execution. 3) Given the above, it would be of /great/ benefit to your argument if either Zac or Brian (or preferably both) stepped up from time to time and said yes, this is really an issue. Not that they'd necessarily reply to everything you do, but if they could reply once in support, such that you could refer people back to those replies from elsewhere... This would be of particular help concerning the multi-arch work where there's already an implementation for portage, but it is argued a proper spec is still lacking. Obviously if it's approved Brian's going to need to implement it as well as you, and having him too say there's not enough there to do so, ideally with his estimation of where the process is in terms of work needed, as well, would go quite a long way. Similarly but from a different angle, if Zac says that he's not satisfied with the specification even with portage's already implementing what's there and having it proven to work (for whatever definition of "work"), that goes quite a way toward giving the argument for a better spec some serious support, as well. If you can't get those statements, then round and round the discussion will go until people are sick, and until people simply ignore your position and push /something/ thru, which would be a real shame if it could be practically[1] made better, or the practical ideal of PMS ends up getting lost in the results. And if you /can/ get those statements, why are we still going round and round with all this? (Again, references to said statements may be necessary from time to time, given the quantity of posts and the likelihood single answers in support of your position could be missed.) [1] Practically: favorable cost/benefit ratio for the work needed. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
