On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:29:00 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Sergey Popov posted on Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 as excerpted:
> > Why [were sets] not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation
> > flaws? Or maybe, architecture problems?
>
> [TL;DR folks, skip to last pa
Sergey Popov posted on Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 as excerpted:
> Why [were sets] not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation
> flaws? Or maybe, architecture problems?
[TL;DR folks, skip to last paragraph summary.]
(As a user who has been using sets as they appear in the kde overlay
Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 23:12:08
Michael Palimaka napisał(a):
> On 14/08/2013 23:02, Michał Górny wrote:
> > No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow PMS.
> Are you saying we can't use sets at all in the tree, or we can't use
> them to replace existing meta packages?
W
On 14/08/2013 23:02, Michał Górny wrote:
No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow PMS.
Are you saying we can't use sets at all in the tree, or we can't use
them to replace existing meta packages?
