On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:36:24 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> > OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. Gentoo does >> > not require the use of OpenRC any more than it requires the use of >> > portage as the package manager. >> >> So would you stabilize a package that works with paludis, but not with >> portage? Ouch. It should probably not be in the tree in the first >> place, but I that's not what I have in mind here. > > This isn't a good example, because the PMS compliance governs over this. >
PMS really only covers the format of the ebuilds themselves, and stuff like built-in functions that these rely on - the interface between ebuilds and package managers. If you have some fancy utility that edits config files (like a USE-flag editor) then PMS won't cover that. The meaning of a USE flag is covered by PMS, but how you tell the package manager what flags to use is not. Right now paludis doesn't have any stable versions. I would not have a problem with that changing, and if it did I'd have no problem with having other stable packages that require paludis. I would have a problem with ebuilds that don't follow PMS, but if somebody has a helper utility or front-end or something that is paludis-oriented I see no reason it couldn't be in the tree. We already have PM-agnostic utilities, like python-updater. We provide sensible defaults, and right now OpenRC is the most sensible default. That doesn't mean that things that require systemd or something else can't be stable. Stability is about the quality of the ebuilds and the user experience in general. It is not a statement that all Gentoo developers think that the package is useful. Many would say that nobody should be using MySQL/MariaDB for production work, but that has nothing to do with its stability as a package either. Rich
