On 03/30/2016 07:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 02:26 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 31 March 2016 at 01:49, Joakim Tjernlund >> <joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am missing something? >>> Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should >>> be >>> doable under a profile as well. >> >> So after you ignore my other stuff: Profiles are part of the PMS >> specification, so any changes that go in there have to be EAPI >> scheduled and cried over for a bit, and probably GLEPs and stuff also. >> >> I guess portage could informally support it prior to any such >> specification materialising, but it would have to be forbidden in the >> main tree until such a specification was defined, or the portage tree >> would become PMS in-compatible. > > Yes, exactly! There is no need to use non PMS compatible features in > the gentoo tree.
We hide extensions like this behind profile-formats settings in metadata/layout.conf. Please file a feature request bug for this at bugs.gentoo.org. -- Thanks, Zac
