On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > 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.
Perhaps Gentoo should be doing more to correct the attitudes of those developers, then. > 2) PMS is supposed to be about specifying things well enough that all > three PMs can implement compatible ebuild/eclass/etc interpretation > and execution. Not exactly. It's about making sure ebuild developers know what they can rely upon from a package mangler. > 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. They already have. For example: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml > And if you /can/ get those statements, why are we still going round > and round with all this? That's a very good question. Why are people still blaming the PMS team for the lack of magical appearance of flying unicorns rather than making their case for the introduction of a horse? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
