On 10/04/2014 07:24, Michael Snoyman wrote:
Didn't Johan get an amendment agreed a few weeks ago? I think your current amendments will have difficulty because they are based on premises that many people disagree with, but that doesn't mean that no amendments at all are possible.
I should have clarified: no amendment that points out flaws in the PVP. My premise is simple: the PVP is a useful tool, but does not address all cases. Since people seem to mistakenly believe that it will protect them from all build problems, the text should be amended to make that clear. Every attempt I've made to come up with text that is acceptable to this list has been met with resistance. If someone else can come up with a modification that is acceptable, great. But I'm not going to continue trying, and will instead try to inform people through other channels that they need to use something more than the PVP if they want reproducible builds.
The problem with instance removal is already documented in section 2.3. The "Rationale" section is perhaps slightly inaccurate in that it says "and tells a client how to write a dependency that means their package will not try to compile against an incompatible dependency". Perhaps we could just change "means" to "in most cases means"? I think the more general communication that the PVP isn't X where it doesn't explicitly claim to be X are indeed best kept to other channels in order to keep the whole thing brief. Ganesh