Proposal: Changes to the PVP

[Ganesh Sittampalam]

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