On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:43:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:29:39 +0200
> Christian Faulhammer <fa...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Which groups who would like to be able to contribute currently feel
> > > that they can't, why do they feel that and why haven't they said so?
> > 
> >  For example people from the other package managers apart from
> > Paludis.
> 
> Zac's said he's not particularly interested in the deciding upon new
> features part, and despite that there was considerable Portage
> influence upon all three new EAPIs. The Pkgcore people haven't tried
> pushing for anything as far as I know. The option's there for them, but
> they haven't expressed any interest.

Actually pkgcore folk have pushed for stuff.  mtime preservation is a 
simple example of things I've pushed for- at the time implemented by 
portage/pkgcore, eliminates the orphan potential for .pyc and other 
generated files (iow, very useful).  My personal opinion on what goes 
into PMS is that it's typically only stuff that paludis supports 
already (or is a direction paludis wants to go towards).  Could be 
wrong, but that's my opinion of it via watching/involvement in it from 
it's public inception.

In terms of involvement in PMS, frankly it's not worth it from where 
I'm sitting due to ciarans behaviour.  Simplest explanation possible 
there is that w/ ciaran being effectively the loudest voice PMS wise, 
combined w/ behaviour involving sitting on bugs in competing managers 
(including instances where that manager isn't compliant w/ PMS) and 
popping them out at random times on the ML to rip on the manager, 
it's not worth dealing with it.

It's not a matter of having thicker skin- it's literally a question of 
worth.  Is it worth trying to have a voice if it means exposing 
yourself to BS behaviour?  Via that line of thought y'all should be 
able to understand my personal choice involvement wise.

It's basically a happier existance to just implement the spec, and 
keep the head down ;)

My two cents on it, for what it's worth.
~brian

Attachment: pgpNF1BWasHyA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to