On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:42:21 +0000 Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote:
> Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > While the PMS perhaps hasn't been an unequivocal success, it's > > still a good effort with some success. I would be disappointed to > > see the proposed change, and view it as a bad sign for Gentoo. > > As far as technical documentation about how ebuilds work (the core of > Gentoo, but also many other distributions; I have created several of > my own), PMS is an absolutely amazing document! I was not suggesting to get rid of it. Said another way, What is the reference implementation of PMS? Java has lots of specs, and usually a reference implementation. In the case where there is no implementation is where companies compete. Thus would not be in any benefit to assist the other with an implementation. > It comes down to whether Gentoo is a "meta-distribution" with > absolutely amazing generic tooling (including portage), or "simply" a > source-based distribution with an arbitrary package format. I am suggesting Gentoo be the reference implementation, portage be the reference implementation of PMS. It should be limited by the developers not outsiders. I cannot explain why those who do portage development are not the PMS authors. As a developer, it seems something is off there. > PMS has tremendous value, and yes, EAPI is a process, and I am sure > that portage developers gnash their teeth at blockers stemming from > PMS, but I wholeheartedly believe that Gentoo, PMS and Portage are > all better off for it. EAPI is surely a process, I came across a EAPI=2 ebuild the other day, and still likely some EAPI=0 in tree. I would not consider EAPI to be a success by any means. It creates waves of "wheel spinning". Revising the internals of an ebuild for little to no gain. If I updated that EAPI=2 ebuild. The installed result would be no different. Given that fact, I see no benefit to EAPI=6 over EAPI=2. > Without knowing specifics I guess I would suggest to the original > poster to create new tooling for the job that needs to be done. Maybe > even a fork of portage, at first only used in your (derivative) > Gentoo distribution? Just my idea for a possible solution. I am not using a derived distributions. I am running Gentoo with a massive overlay due to the amount of packages not updated in tree. My overlay would not exist if I could have returned. I cannot improve from within thus I am limited to an overlay on top. But I am not running some other distro or making my own. I have warm and open offers to be part of Funtoo. None of my systems run that. All my systems, servers and workstations run Gentoo. Just with a massive overlay slapped on top. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgp8OlFj5Nxey.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
