Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-25 Thread Lance Albertson
Jan Kundrát wrote: > José Costa wrote: >> The Gentoo Council/Gentoo Infra only needs to release one API for all >> package managers, with all the procedures, how to do stuff standards, >> quality assurance stuff, blabla... > > I don't see any reason why the Infrastructure Team should be affiliate

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-24 Thread Jan Kundrát
José Costa wrote: > The Gentoo Council/Gentoo Infra only needs to release one API for all > package managers, with all the procedures, how to do stuff standards, > quality assurance stuff, blabla... I don't see any reason why the Infrastructure Team should be affiliated with the decision :). Bles

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-23 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:46:21 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Except that if things were really problematic, the council could have | some developers go in to actually do the thing required. Even if it | were against the wishes of the maintainers. I do not believe that the | failur

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-23 Thread José Costa
The Gentoo Council/Gentoo Infra only needs to release one API for all package managers, with all the procedures, how to do stuff standards, quality assurance stuff, blabla... Create that documentation for what Gentoo and their devels really need and the package manager developers do what they wan

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-23 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 10:00, Thilo Bangert wrote: > > However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council > > member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at > > it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or > > promoted the primary pk

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-23 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Monday 22 May 2006 23:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:47:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | You will be tired of hearing this but backwards compat is a big issue. > | It is an issue that I think the portage team took into consideration > | far too much in

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-23 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:54, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > > Am I missing something obvious? > > > > -g2boojum- > > Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people > will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever > becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-23 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Monday 22 May 2006 18:30, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > On 22/05/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this > > would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers. > > Surely such decisions should be based on t

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-23 Thread Thilo Bangert
> However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council > member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at > it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or > promoted the primary pkg mgt system being hosted offsite and maintained > by non d

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Alec Warner
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:10:22 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage: > | Paludis is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to > | work with, Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitit

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:10:22 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage: | Paludis is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to | work with, Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitity has to be | controlled by som

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Jon Portnoy
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > > > Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an outside > > entity steer our primary package manager. > > I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and > many others have survived quit

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ned Ludd
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 22:51 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > On 22/05/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and > > > many others have survived quite well. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:47:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | You will be tired of hearing this but backwards compat is a big issue. | It is an issue that I think the portage team took into consideration | far too much in the past, leading to this current situation. Most | sane peopl

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 22/05/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and > many others have survived quite well. rpm and apt have withstood the test of time and are mature pkg managers, not

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Alec Warner
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting > | others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our > | standards based on their needs and not our own. > > S

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:29:27 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 20:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > wrote: | > | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is | > | letting others dec

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Thilo Bangert
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Perhaps something like the following would suffice: nice - thank you! if i have a vote i put it here... now, if only the politicians would notice it. regards bangert pgpShDqsyI6iA.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Daniel Drake
Paul de Vrieze wrote: First of all, I'm in limbo on this. Certainly not dead set against it. If this were to be used, I'd like to add the following line: "At least 1 of these three must be actively involved in the development of the package manager". Could others please provide input on this

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ned Ludd
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 20:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting > | others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our > | standards based on

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting | others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our | standards based on their needs and not our own. So where are the use and slot deps?

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ned Ludd
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] > > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly > > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needin

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Lance Albertson
Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: >> Pkgcore is external, and will be making a run for official also- >> granted, easier to just state "you're just trying to screw with >> ciaranm" to disprove it (rather then arguing the points). > > Arguing the points aren't the issue. I just ha

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Grant Goodyear
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 06:29:19AM CDT] > I have put a new revision of the alternative package manager requirements > GLEP on line. The html version can be found at: > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0049.html It seems to me that the main concerns addressed in that GLEP ar

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:31:40 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote: > Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the above sounds like if there's less > than "3 Gentoo developers that understand... ... ..." the package > maintainers *don't* have the right to refuse and magically get sucked > into Gentoo w

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Tim Yamin
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:47:22AM +, Thomas Cort wrote: > So what I suggest is the following: > > "While it is desirable that the primary package manager be maintained > on official gentoo infrastructure, under the control of gentoo > developers, it is not required. During the path to becomin

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 22/05/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers. Surely such decisions should be based on technical merit, and not political? The technical cost of forkin

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Stephen P. Becker
Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: >>> Am I missing something obvious? >>> >>> -g2boojum- >> Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people >> will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever >> beco

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > > Am I missing something obvious? > > > > -g2boojum- > > Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people > will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever > becomes official for Gento

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Stephen P. Becker
Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: >> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] >> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly about the primary pkg mana

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Stephen P. Becker
> Am I missing something obvious? > > -g2boojum- Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it that mentioned this GLEP stacked the desk against Paludis? -Steve

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] > > > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly > > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing re

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Grant Goodyear
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the full > > control of Gentoo Linux. > > > > A

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Jon Portnoy
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > > First of all, I'm in limbo on this. Certainly not dead set against it. If > > this were to be used, I'd like to add the following line: "At least 1 of > > these three must be actively involved in the development of the package >

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:03 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "While it is desirable that the primary package manager be > > maintained on official gentoo infrastructure, under the control of > > gentoo developers, it is not required. During the path to becoming > > the primary

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 22/05/06, Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of non-Free software[1], it is safe to assume that the package manager is Free software (aka open source). Because of this, we will never be locked-in, helpless, or under the control of an external pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Ned Ludd
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 14:59 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Monday 22 May 2006 10:47, Thomas Cort wrote: > > I definitely agree that Gentoo needs a team of people to deal with the > > primary package manager, it is one of the most important tools in a > > Linux system. It is especially important

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:59:03PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Monday 22 May 2006 10:47, Thomas Cort wrote: > > I definitely agree that Gentoo needs a team of people to deal with the > > primary package manager, it is one of the most important tools in a > > Linux system. It is especially imp

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Monday 22 May 2006 10:47, Thomas Cort wrote: > I definitely agree that Gentoo needs a team of people to deal with the > primary package manager, it is one of the most important tools in a > Linux system. It is especially important in Gentoo where the package > manager is, at this point in time,

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Thomas Cort
On Mon, 22 May 2006 13:29:19 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The primary package manager is maintained on official Gentoo > infrastructure, under control of Gentoo developers. I sent this to gentoo-dev a couple of days ago, but it didn't get any replies. I was told my mail clien

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

2006-05-22 Thread Paul de Vrieze
Hi all. I have put a new revision of the alternative package manager requirements GLEP on line. The html version can be found at: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0049.html The text version is attached here. I have not yet made changes to the requirement that the primary package manage