| 1 |
On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 |
| 4 |
>> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS |
| 6 |
>>> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It |
| 7 |
>>> is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental 2.2_alpha |
| 8 |
>>> branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to portage team, |
| 9 |
>>> by the way :-)). |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation flaws? |
| 12 |
>>> Or maybe, architecture problems? |
| 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 |
> You keep repeating that. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That doesn't make it more true. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Even if it were true, this does not stop pms from providing an |
| 23 |
abstraction layer which provides the needed support despite the details |
| 24 |
of the underlying implementation. The argument that implementation |
| 25 |
details limit such possibilities is spurious and should be ignored. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 30 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 31 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 32 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives