Mailing List Archive

EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +0000, Steve Long wrote:
> Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on that..

No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm).
http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/PMS

Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled notification);
either way, think it's probably worth getting a status update on it in
council this coming month.

Honestly, way too much is riding on it being completed; some form of
tracking is needed (yes it's annoying, but there are still too many
arguements over "is portages behaviour the standard?").


~harring
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +0000, Steve Long wrote:
| > Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on
| > that..
|
| No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm).
| http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/PMS
|
| Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
| notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
| update on it in council this coming month.

The offer of "we'll let council people read it if they promise not to
let anyone else get their hands on it" is still open. However, in the
interests of it ever getting finished, we have to ensure that certain
people don't get their hands on it or we'll have to spend all our spare
time arguing over pointless nonsense.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:49:56PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +0000, Steve Long wrote:
> | > Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on
> | > that..
> |
> | No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm).
> | http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/PMS
> |
> | Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> | notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> | update on it in council this coming month.
>
> The offer of "we'll let council people read it if they promise not to
> let anyone else get their hands on it" is still open.

I can understand "wait until we've got something to show"; that's
fairly standard- that's about the only case I consider valid however.

So... how far a long are they?

Further, since this *is* something gentoo needs, when will it
potentially be finished? We've been told repeatedly it's being worked
on, and it's referred to as if it's almost finished.

In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to *not*
get a status update on it.


> However, in the interests of it ever getting finished, we have to
> ensure that certain people don't get their hands on it or we'll
> have to spend all our spare time arguing over pointless nonsense.

What, like the existing portage devs?

Flamewar aside, it's a simple request; can the council please look
into it. If this is the route to go (ie, closed development and
they're doing it), fine, but I'm requesting folks take a look at it,
see if it's progressing.

If it's not, then time to find another way to get it done.

~harring
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:13:54 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
wrote:
| So... how far a long are they?

Better to say what we don't have:

* descriptions of all those pesky little helper programs.

* clarity and detail for certain sections.

| Further, since this *is* something gentoo needs, when will it
| potentially be finished? We've been told repeatedly it's being
| worked on, and it's referred to as if it's almost finished.

It will be finished when it's ready.

| > However, in the interests of it ever getting finished, we have to
| > ensure that certain people don't get their hands on it or we'll
| > have to spend all our spare time arguing over pointless nonsense.
|
| What, like the existing portage devs?

Access is open to individual people who ask for it, if we think that a)
they'll be useful rather than just going around attempting to sabotage
the thing and b) they won't give it to the wrong people.

| Flamewar aside, it's a simple request; can the council please look
| into it. If this is the route to go (ie, closed development and
| they're doing it), fine, but I'm requesting folks take a look at it,
| see if it's progressing.
|
| If it's not, then time to find another way to get it done.

*shrug* It's not so much about getting it done as having something
decent when it is done. For it to be useful, it has to be quality, not
wiki.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> update on it in council this coming month.

Right now I'm placing a higher priority on getting a degree. It'll be
done when it's done, which is not now.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +0000, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> > notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> > update on it in council this coming month.
>
> Right now I'm placing a higher priority on getting a degree. It'll be
> done when it's done, which is not now.

Thanks for the clarification (and just to be clear, I am not being
sarcastic and I do truly mean thank you for the info).

Council- y'all were after getting this finished as far as I know,
perhaps you could discuss intentions?

~harring
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +0000, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> >
> > Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> > > notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a
> > > status update on it in council this coming month.
> >
> > Right now I'm placing a higher priority on getting a degree. It'll
> > be done when it's done, which is not now.
>
> Council- y'all were after getting this finished as far as I know,
> perhaps you could discuss intentions?

Why? There is work done on this, and there will be further work being
done. Several council member have access to it - including me - and
are quite confident about what is already done.

Danny
--
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:08:14PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +0000, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> > >
> > > Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> > > > notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a
> > > > status update on it in council this coming month.
> > >
> > > Right now I'm placing a higher priority on getting a degree. It'll
> > > be done when it's done, which is not now.
> >
> > Council- y'all were after getting this finished as far as I know,
> > perhaps you could discuss intentions?
>
> Why? There is work done on this, and there will be further work being
> done.

The question of 'when' comes to mind; he's busy, which is fine-
originally however, recall the council pushing for it to be finished.

Perhaps not all of the council; distinctly recall diego pushing about
it though. Quick look through council logs, robbat2 was asking about
timeline also (jan. meeting specifically).


> Several council member have access to it - including me - and
> are quite confident about what is already done.

The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion so
that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to rest.

Offhand, if the council (majority, no offense meant but not just
one council member who is also a paludis dev) is happy with the state
of things and timelines, then I'll gladly retract the request.

~harring
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:22:14 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Perhaps not all of the council; distinctly recall diego pushing about
| it though. Quick look through council logs, robbat2 was asking about
| timeline also (jan. meeting specifically).

You've gotta ask *why* certain people are so keen on pushing it
through... Perhaps if they explained why they needed it in such a hurry
we would prioritise it differently.

| > Several council member have access to it - including me - and
| > are quite confident about what is already done.
|
| The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion so
| that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to rest.

*shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully
conformant independent implementation, personally. So that more or
less means that for me, PMS will become a priority at around the same
time that Paludis 1.0_pre is released.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
Ciaran,

Admittedly, I'm new to this PMS thing so in many cases I'm speaking
from a position of ignorance, but I guess I need to jump in
somewhere....

I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
strive for. If at all possible, I think that this standardization
effort should be "multi-lateral" in the sense that Gentoo and pkgcore
are also active participants in the standardization process.

Also, I don't think that the council itself needs to be involved
directly, as a standards/spec project can be created and worked on,
and the conformance of Portage to this standard can be measured, and
if desired Portage developers can tweak portage so that it is more
conformant to this standard. This can be done voluntarily by all
parties, as they deem it useful.

The goal would be to have the ability to measure a package manager's
behavior against a known standard, rather than force a certain package
manager to behave a certain way. I would expect that the general
concern for interoperability within the Gentoo community will
encourage package manager developers to work towards resolving any
interoperability problems that do exist.

I think standardization should focus on real interoperability issues,
rather than esoteric technical issues. I think a good way to start
would be to create some kind of test/regression suite in the portage
tree that can be used to measure the package manager's functionality.
Some stuff would be of an obvious pass/fail nature but other things
can be couched in more subjective terms - like "will unmerge device
nodes - yes/no "

That at least would allow us to measure where we are in terms of
interoperability, and identify future areas of improvement.

Like I said, I'm just getting familiar with all this but those are my thoughts.

-Daniel

On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:22:14 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> | Perhaps not all of the council; distinctly recall diego pushing about
> | it though. Quick look through council logs, robbat2 was asking about
> | timeline also (jan. meeting specifically).
>
> You've gotta ask *why* certain people are so keen on pushing it
> through... Perhaps if they explained why they needed it in such a hurry
> we would prioritise it differently.
>
> | > Several council member have access to it - including me - and
> | > are quite confident about what is already done.
> |
> | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion so
> | that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to rest.
>
> *shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully
> conformant independent implementation, personally. So that more or
> less means that for me, PMS will become a priority at around the same
> time that Paludis 1.0_pre is released.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
> Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
> Web : http://ciaranm.org/
> Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
>
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:19:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<drobbins.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
| I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
| between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
| strive for. If at all possible, I think that this standardization
| effort should be "multi-lateral" in the sense that Gentoo and pkgcore
| are also active participants in the standardization process.

Well, Gentoo already is a participant, in that there are a number
of Gentoo developers with access to the document... At this stage, we're
deliberately keeping the numbers down because we want to get it done
rather than spend huge amounts of time arguing with the peanut gallery
(the same approach we took with eselect, the devmanual and Paludis,
rather than the approach taken with portage-ng and Zynot).

| Also, I don't think that the council itself needs to be involved
| directly, as a standards/spec project can be created and worked on,
| and the conformance of Portage to this standard can be measured, and
| if desired Portage developers can tweak portage so that it is more
| conformant to this standard. This can be done voluntarily by all
| parties, as they deem it useful.

The reason the Council is involved is because someone has to give final
approval. This won't be asked for until late on in the process.

| I think standardization should focus on real interoperability issues,
| rather than esoteric technical issues.

The esoteric technical issues are the problem, though. The areas where
there are interoperability problems are the areas where ebuilds are
doing weird things, like relying upon side effects of one
implementation of inherit or trying to manually modify vdb or assuming
that certain variables that contain directory names will not include a
trailing slash. The question is whether the ebuilds are wrong in
expecting to be able to do this, or whether package managers have to
emulate weird quirks in how Portage is currently implemented.

I'll give you a perfect example. Paludis currently includes the
following workaround:

archives = strip_trailing(archives, " ");
all_archives = strip_trailing(all_archives, " ");

The reason that this is necessary is because kde-meta.eclass does this:

[[ -n ${A/${TARBALL}/} ]] && unpack ${A/${TARBALL}/}

Which means that if a package manager includes trailing spaces in ${A},
the eclass will break. Personally I consider this to be an eclass bug,
but without some standard to back it up there's no concrete answer
either way.

Another example along the same lines (this one's now fixed in the tree,
but it's a good example of weird side effect behaviour): The PHP
eclasses used to set a global scope variable called EXT_DIR based upon
the value of a variable called PHPCONFIG. The PHPCONFIG variable was
set in pkg_setup, and the EXT_DIR variable was used later on. For
Portage as it is currently implemented, this happens to be ok, because
eclasses are re-sourced for every phase. For Paludis this breaks,
because we implement the environment saving that Portage is going to do
at some point to avoid the eclass API problems.

Another example: A certain eclass we all know and love used to use
SLOT=${PVR} and then force uninstalls by overwriting VDB SLOT files
when installing packages. As it happens, Portage doesn't cache those
entries, and because of how it implements cleaning the hack happens to
work. The question is whether ebuilds are allowed to rely upon weird
quirks like that (and, indeed, whether ebuilds should be reading VDB at
all).

Another example: Various ebuilds rely upon the order of items in $A
matching the order in $SRC_URI. This one's arguably useful, but at the
same time it's questionable as to whether it works by fluke.

It's these cases that are the problem, not the generalities. On the one
hand, requiring that package managers implement every Portage quirk
identically is insane, and stops Portage from changing behaviour in the
future. On the other hand, restricting the API to only completely sane
things makes it much harder to code certain ebuilds -- the $A ordering
is one example of this.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
OK, my initial impression of this is:

1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and
can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts
can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times
I'd put the burden of compatibility on the eclass rather than the
package manager, because it's the eclass that's trying to do "weird
stuff."

2) to ensure cross-package-manager compatibility, all one would need
to do is document what one can and cannot assume regarding Portage
functionality. I see no harm in having the ebuilds/eclasses assume
less and encourage others to write more robust and compatible ebuild
and eclass functions.

3) I regretfully added eclasses to portage. Although they're useful, I
don't think they ever made sense from an architecture perspective and
are certainly not pretty. Eclasses are nearly ubiquitous now, which is
unfortunate. I can't remember seeing an eclass that I ever liked, even
if the functionality was really useful and everything was
well-written, thought out, documented, etc.

4) Building on 3, I think there are two ways of life in the world of
Portage - either the eclasses control you, or you fight back a bit and
control the growth of eclasses. The eclasses are sort of an
"anti-architecture" so I think our will should to be imposed on them
rather than the other way around. Otherwise you are in a catch-22
where we are continually adding tons of weird "legacy code" in the
form of eclasses and this problem of cross-package manager
compatibility will never go away.

Those are my thoughts, anyway...

If you wanted to get me to agree with you by giving me lots of eclass
compatibility issues, then it worked :)

-Daniel

On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:19:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
> <drobbins.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
> | I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
> | between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
> | strive for. If at all possible, I think that this standardization
> | effort should be "multi-lateral" in the sense that Gentoo and pkgcore
> | are also active participants in the standardization process.
>
> Well, Gentoo already is a participant, in that there are a number
> of Gentoo developers with access to the document... At this stage, we're
> deliberately keeping the numbers down because we want to get it done
> rather than spend huge amounts of time arguing with the peanut gallery
> (the same approach we took with eselect, the devmanual and Paludis,
> rather than the approach taken with portage-ng and Zynot).
>
> | Also, I don't think that the council itself needs to be involved
> | directly, as a standards/spec project can be created and worked on,
> | and the conformance of Portage to this standard can be measured, and
> | if desired Portage developers can tweak portage so that it is more
> | conformant to this standard. This can be done voluntarily by all
> | parties, as they deem it useful.
>
> The reason the Council is involved is because someone has to give final
> approval. This won't be asked for until late on in the process.
>
> | I think standardization should focus on real interoperability issues,
> | rather than esoteric technical issues.
>
> The esoteric technical issues are the problem, though. The areas where
> there are interoperability problems are the areas where ebuilds are
> doing weird things, like relying upon side effects of one
> implementation of inherit or trying to manually modify vdb or assuming
> that certain variables that contain directory names will not include a
> trailing slash. The question is whether the ebuilds are wrong in
> expecting to be able to do this, or whether package managers have to
> emulate weird quirks in how Portage is currently implemented.
>
> I'll give you a perfect example. Paludis currently includes the
> following workaround:
>
> archives = strip_trailing(archives, " ");
> all_archives = strip_trailing(all_archives, " ");
>
> The reason that this is necessary is because kde-meta.eclass does this:
>
> [[ -n ${A/${TARBALL}/} ]] && unpack ${A/${TARBALL}/}
>
> Which means that if a package manager includes trailing spaces in ${A},
> the eclass will break. Personally I consider this to be an eclass bug,
> but without some standard to back it up there's no concrete answer
> either way.
>
> Another example along the same lines (this one's now fixed in the tree,
> but it's a good example of weird side effect behaviour): The PHP
> eclasses used to set a global scope variable called EXT_DIR based upon
> the value of a variable called PHPCONFIG. The PHPCONFIG variable was
> set in pkg_setup, and the EXT_DIR variable was used later on. For
> Portage as it is currently implemented, this happens to be ok, because
> eclasses are re-sourced for every phase. For Paludis this breaks,
> because we implement the environment saving that Portage is going to do
> at some point to avoid the eclass API problems.
>
> Another example: A certain eclass we all know and love used to use
> SLOT=${PVR} and then force uninstalls by overwriting VDB SLOT files
> when installing packages. As it happens, Portage doesn't cache those
> entries, and because of how it implements cleaning the hack happens to
> work. The question is whether ebuilds are allowed to rely upon weird
> quirks like that (and, indeed, whether ebuilds should be reading VDB at
> all).
>
> Another example: Various ebuilds rely upon the order of items in $A
> matching the order in $SRC_URI. This one's arguably useful, but at the
> same time it's questionable as to whether it works by fluke.
>
> It's these cases that are the problem, not the generalities. On the one
> hand, requiring that package managers implement every Portage quirk
> identically is insane, and stops Portage from changing behaviour in the
> future. On the other hand, restricting the API to only completely sane
> things makes it much harder to code certain ebuilds -- the $A ordering
> is one example of this.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
> Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
> Web : http://ciaranm.org/
> Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
>
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:12:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<drobbins.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
| 1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and
| can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts
| can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times
| I'd put the burden of compatibility on the eclass rather than the
| package manager, because it's the eclass that's trying to do "weird
| stuff."

Yep. Here's the problem though:

How much of the tree is it ok to modify, and how complex are the
modifications allowed to be, for the sake of compatibility?

The aim with Paludis is to ask for modifications only where it's a hard
dried "the ebuild / eclass is doing something highly stupid", simply
because that's the only way it will be accepted. Even then, some
maintainers refuse to make changes to code that works with one
particular version of Portage. And until PMS is standardised, there's
nothing that can be done to make them do otherwise.

| 2) to ensure cross-package-manager compatibility, all one would need
| to do is document what one can and cannot assume regarding Portage
| functionality. I see no harm in having the ebuilds/eclasses assume
| less and encourage others to write more robust and compatible ebuild
| and eclass functions.

In principle, I agree. In practice, writing robust bash code is a pain
in the ass. If it's the case of a couple of lines of hacks in the
package manager or a dozen lines of hacks in hundreds of ebuilds, it's
simply more practical to impose a weird requirement upon the package
manager.

| 3) I regretfully added eclasses to portage. Although they're useful, I
| don't think they ever made sense from an architecture perspective and
| are certainly not pretty. Eclasses are nearly ubiquitous now, which is
| unfortunate. I can't remember seeing an eclass that I ever liked, even
| if the functionality was really useful and everything was
| well-written, thought out, documented, etc.

Eh, my objections to eclasses are purely based upon the limitations
imposed by Portage (the "no API change" one). As a general idea they
make the tree a lot less complex, and they often move all the package
manager dependent hacks into one place...

| If you wanted to get me to agree with you by giving me lots of eclass
| compatibility issues, then it worked :)

Hm. Maybe I should have picked up some of the dodgy ebuild code
instead... There's a heck of a lot of that too. It's just that eclass
weirdness is easier to find.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion so
> | that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to rest.
>
> *shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully
> conformant independent implementation, personally. So that more or
> less means that for me, PMS will become a priority at around the same
> time that Paludis 1.0_pre is released.

Are you really saying that you won't be releasing this information until
such time as *Paludis* meets it, even though portage/pkgcore may not?
Isn't the *point* of this spec to try to bring everyone on the same
page?

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion
| > | so that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to
| > | rest.
| >
| > *shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully
| > conformant independent implementation, personally. So that more or
| > less means that for me, PMS will become a priority at around the
| > same time that Paludis 1.0_pre is released.
|
| Are you really saying that you won't be releasing this information
| until such time as *Paludis* meets it, even though portage/pkgcore
| may not? Isn't the *point* of this spec to try to bring everyone on
| the same page?

I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors.
This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the
principal difference between, say, Open Document Format and Office Open
XML -- the former is a real standard, whereas the latter is a
description of how one program operates.

Now, if PMS happens to end up being ready before Paludis 1.0, PMS will
get released before then. But if Paludis 1.0 ends up being ready before
PMS, my and probably others' priorities will switch to getting PMS
ready as quickly as sanely possible.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the

Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the
result of a collaborative effort of representing members of the
organization(s) that is (are) supposed to adhere to said standard. I
believe I don't need then to explain you how far what happens around
PMS is from standard practice.

You say you want to avoid endless discussions "in the interest of
getting it finished". Now, if your work is that good, why would there
be any discussions about it? If it's not good enough, why wouldn't you
let us talk about it and make it better? Also, if it goes in the wrong
direction, one that Gentoo devs won't follow, what's the point in
finishing it?

Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:47:04 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron"
<calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
| On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
| > This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the
|
| Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the
| result of a collaborative effort of representing members of the
| organization(s) that is (are) supposed to adhere to said standard. I
| believe I don't need then to explain you how far what happens around
| PMS is from standard practice.

You know that real standards aren't a free for all, right? They're
usually written by a small group, and then commented on by interested
parties when they're already well into being written. Which is exactly
what we're doing...

| You say you want to avoid endless discussions "in the interest of
| getting it finished". Now, if your work is that good, why would there
| be any discussions about it?

Because there are a lot of people with opinions out there, and they
will all start saying things like "well it would be better if things
were like $blah, so you should change it to say $blah". Have a look at
the amount of noise that comes up any time this kind of discussion
takes place on this list...

Heck, have a look at the number of people already trying to comment
upon how the standard is being written without having seen it...

| If it's not good enough, why wouldn't you let us talk about it and
| make it better?

We will let you (for values of you where your opinion is useful and
relevant) discuss it when it is at an appropriate stage.

| Also, if it goes in the wrong direction, one that
| Gentoo devs won't follow, what's the point in finishing it?

It isn't going in the wrong direction. The third parties who have
access to it will tell you that.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
Ciaran,

Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
created so far?

I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit
concerned.

-Daniel

On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:47:04 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron"
> <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> | > This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the
> |
> | Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the
> | result of a collaborative effort of representing members of the
> | organization(s) that is (are) supposed to adhere to said standard. I
> | believe I don't need then to explain you how far what happens around
> | PMS is from standard practice.
>
> You know that real standards aren't a free for all, right? They're
> usually written by a small group, and then commented on by interested
> parties when they're already well into being written. Which is exactly
> what we're doing...
>
> | You say you want to avoid endless discussions "in the interest of
> | getting it finished". Now, if your work is that good, why would there
> | be any discussions about it?
>
> Because there are a lot of people with opinions out there, and they
> will all start saying things like "well it would be better if things
> were like $blah, so you should change it to say $blah". Have a look at
> the amount of noise that comes up any time this kind of discussion
> takes place on this list...
>
> Heck, have a look at the number of people already trying to comment
> upon how the standard is being written without having seen it...
>
> | If it's not good enough, why wouldn't you let us talk about it and
> | make it better?
>
> We will let you (for values of you where your opinion is useful and
> relevant) discuss it when it is at an appropriate stage.
>
> | Also, if it goes in the wrong direction, one that
> | Gentoo devs won't follow, what's the point in finishing it?
>
> It isn't going in the wrong direction. The third parties who have
> access to it will tell you that.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
> Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
> Web : http://ciaranm.org/
> Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
>
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<drobbins.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
| Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
| created so far?

They can ask spb. If spb is convinced that they have something useful
to contribute at this stage, and that they won't do something silly
like sticking it where anyone can view it, he'll give them read access.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <drobbins.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
> created so far?
>
> I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
> but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit
> concerned.

At this stage, individuals can ask for a copy, or for read access to
the repository, if we think that their input is likely to be more
productive than distracting. Once it is sufficiently complete, read
access will be opened to the public and drafts will likely be sent to
-dev for comment. For the same reasons that the repository isn't
public, though, such drafts are currently given out on the
understanding that they won't be distributed further.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
Brian Harring wrote:
[snip]
> In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to *not*
> get a status update on it.

We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not done, we
don't want to show you" every month. It's one of the things I intend to
bring up at the march meeting.

[snip]

--
=======================================================
Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Council
Gentoo Developer Relations
Gentoo Infrastructure
GPG: E1A5 1C9C 93FE F430 C1D6 F2AF 806B A2E4 19F4 AE05
=======================================================
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Brian Harring wrote:
| [snip]
| > In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to
| > *not* get a status update on it.
|
| We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not done, we
| don't want to show you" every month. It's one of the things I intend
| to bring up at the march meeting.

You're ignoring our offer to show you what's done, eh? Fair enough.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Brian Harring wrote:
> | [snip]
> | > In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to
> | > *not* get a status update on it.
> |
> | We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not done, we
> | don't want to show you" every month. It's one of the things I intend
> | to bring up at the march meeting.
>
> You're ignoring our offer to show you what's done, eh? Fair enough.
>
I was never offered this offer.

--
=======================================================
Mike Doty kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Council
Gentoo Developer Relations
Gentoo Infrastructure
GPG: E1A5 1C9C 93FE F430 C1D6 F2AF 806B A2E4 19F4 AE05
=======================================================
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
Stephen Bennett wrote:

> At this stage, individuals can ask for a copy, or for read access to

This stage is usually called early draft, the editor puts every input he
deems useful in the first document and then he sends it for discussion
once he is happy with it. So, no problems on this practice once we know
that we are at the early draft phase of a quite large document.

The perception were that the document is quite in a further stage, say
pre-release, so people was expecting to see it and comment on it.

Now, I think we could wait even a bit more, but there is much interest
in seeing it complete so is natural that more people are willing to help
speeding up at least the first release.

I agree with Ciaran that would be better have at least a working sample
implementation while discussing it, I won't call it 1.0pre again because
it gives a wrong perception.

I'm looking forward to see the spec and the initial implementation ^^

lu

--

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)) [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:10:51PM -0800, Mike Doty wrote:
> I was never offered this offer.

If you read the emails by Ciaran you will see that he already offered the
council members access to read the draft.

--
Alexander Færøy
Bugday Lead
Alpha/IA64/MIPS Architecture Teams
User Relations, Quality Assurance

1 2 3  View All