| 1 |
El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 |
| 3 |
> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS |
| 5 |
> > yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It |
| 6 |
> > is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental 2.2_alpha |
| 7 |
> > branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to portage team, |
| 8 |
> > by the way :-)). |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation flaws? |
| 11 |
> > Or maybe, architecture problems? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Because the Portage format involves executing arbitrary Python code |
| 14 |
> that can depend in arbitrary ways upon undocumented Portage internals |
| 15 |
> that can change between versions. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual |
| 19 |
blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something |
| 20 |
because of "lack of documentation" :S) |
Archives