1 |
On Friday 21 of August 2009 23:46:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:42:11 +0200 |
3 |
|
4 |
> PMS accurately reflected the Portage documentation at the time it was |
5 |
> written and at the time it was approved. |
6 |
Agreed, but I think it was supposed to reflect Portage 'behaviour' at the |
7 |
time. Of course it's hard to blame anyone for it, especially after all these |
8 |
years. |
9 |
|
10 |
> The correct way to proceed is to use EAPI 4 to move this to be a |
11 |
> specified feature, and to permit it only for profiles marked as using |
12 |
> EAPI 4. |
13 |
|
14 |
It's true, but being able to modularize profile may outweights the need to be |
15 |
strict-with-the-book here - it's a matter of usefulness. I think it should be |
16 |
decided by those who actually do the work in profile, whether it's worthy to |
17 |
push this now instead of waiting for EAPI approval. |
18 |
|
19 |
So, can profile developers share their view? |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
regards |
23 |
MM |