On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800 Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 > > Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS > >> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. > >> It is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental > >> 2.2_alpha branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to > >> portage team, by the way :-)). > >> > >> Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation > >> flaws? Or maybe, architecture problems? > > > > Because the Portage format involves executing arbitrary Python code > > that can depend in arbitrary ways upon undocumented Portage > > internals that can change between versions. > > > You keep repeating that. > > That doesn't make it more true.
It's not a question of "more true", it simply is true. Look at the class line. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
