On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer 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.
Even if it were true, this does not stop pms from providing an
abstraction layer which provides the needed support despite the details
of the underlying implementation. The argument that implementation
details limit such possibilities is spurious and should be ignored.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
