| 1 |
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 5 |
> <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is |
| 8 |
> > debate on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug |
| 9 |
> > request and makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and |
| 10 |
> > PMS lacking anything on sets. |
| 11 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Just the needs I have with portage are stalled, marked as invalid. |
| 14 |
> > No discussion for inclusion in PMS. Like documenting sets. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Ah, well, that's the main mystery of this thread solved. Thanks. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That is the tip of the iceberg, not the main problem itself. I have |
| 19 |
never been a fan of EAPI, or the resulting PMS, etc. Having been around |
| 20 |
before such existed, I do not believe it has helped Gentoo and in fact |
| 21 |
maybe the opposite. Why EAPI 0 stuff is in tree, or very old EAPIs. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Now becoming more real issues rather than just a dislike of EAPI. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives