On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:16:18 +0100 Markos Chandras <[email protected]> wrote: > My understanding is that the cvs tree should be PMS compatible and > since 'sets' are not part of PMS that means that it would be wise not > to use them yet. > It is unfortunate that nobody seems to have realized that all these > years that 2.2.X was masked :-/
I don't think it's a question of not realising it. As I understand it, no-one's proposed Portage-format sets to the Council because we all agree it's not suitable for the tree in its current form. The sets in Portage 2.2 are fine as a user feature, but not as a tree feature. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
