El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > 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. >
Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something because of "lack of documentation" :S)
