On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:09:15 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Honestly, I've yet to see any portage developers complaining about > PMS here. There are not that many, the core ones tend to do most the work https://github.com/gentoo/portage/graphs/contributors But I do not seem them participating here much. https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/ Also not sure that is mirrored to Github for what ever reason. To major flags, no mirror to github, and little to no involvement from core portage developers. That seems like a disconnect there. Why would it not be mirred to Github? Not wanting outside PRs or input on PMS? > In general the main hoops to jump through if you want something in > PMS are: From a developer perspective, jumping through hoops will limit creativity, and if nothing else hold back development. I tend to prefer to keep development more unrestrained. > Usually when #1 ends up being the hangup there tend to be serious > concerns about how the concept will work in reality. If it will make > ebuilds harder to maintain or their behavior less predictable then an > implementation alone isn't enough. Either that or there are concerns > that the design doesn't fully address the need, which often happens > when we add a new dependency type. Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is debate on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug request and makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and PMS lacking anything on sets. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 > IMO the process isn't really broken, and I doubt that changing the > name would change anything. We don't wait for other package managers > to support a new PMS version before using it in the tree. More like package managers cannot add features not mentioned by PMS. > We do value > the input of anybody with expertise in this area, though the Council > holds the final say. PMS has a huge impact on our QA and I think > we're generally better off for the time spent on it. PMS I do not see as related to QA. It is something for other package managers. I fail to see how PMS makes QA better. If anything repoman makes QA better. I would have to double check but I bet many things repoman looks out for is not in PMS. > If somebody actually does have a PMS proposal that has been stalled it > wouldn't hurt to share it, or if the portage team feels otherwise. Just the needs I have with portage are stalled, marked as invalid. No discussion for inclusion in PMS. Like documenting sets. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpdVWo2WTAJB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
