On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:06:11 -0700 "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the > > Council's consideration: > > > > "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably > > close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. > > Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible > > on a timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as > > a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo > > tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the > > deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. > > Is this not already the status quo? Surely a number of bugs in the > tree have already been fixed in this manner.
Currently some developers are quite happy to fix issues, whilst others prefer to yell "Portage is the only supported package manager and if it works for me with Portage you can go to hell"... Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
