Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
On Friday 21 of August 2009 23:46:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:42:11 +0200
> PMS accurately reflected the Portage documentation at the time it was
> written and at the time it was approved.
Agreed, but I think it was supposed to reflect Portage 'behaviour' at the
time. Of course it's hard to blame anyone for it, especially after all these
years.
> The correct way to proceed is to use EAPI 4 to move this to be a
> specified feature, and to permit it only for profiles marked as using
> EAPI 4.
It's true, but being able to modularize profile may outweights the need to be
strict-with-the-book here - it's a matter of usefulness. I think it should be
decided by those who actually do the work in profile, whether it's worthy to
push this now instead of waiting for EAPI approval.
So, can profile developers share their view?
--
regards
MM
|
| Attachment: |
|
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
|
|
