| 1 |
On 08/14/2013 11:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:56 +0800 |
| 3 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 08/14/2013 09:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka |
| 6 |
>>>>> <kensington@g.o> wrote: Right now, however, |
| 7 |
>>>>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being |
| 8 |
>>>>> used, trade ideas, etc. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>> No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow |
| 11 |
>>> PMS. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> So fix PMS to reflect reality. Again. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I think you're misunderstanding the point of a standard here. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Well, it should reflect reality. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
PMS is still broken as much as it does not reflect the state of portage |
| 20 |
before PMS was written, and we've had to patch it up a few times to make |
| 21 |
it coherent, plus it is still lacking half the things that would make it |
| 22 |
useful as a standard. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Your academic interpretation of standard as a platonic ideal |
| 25 |
disconnected from reality serves no purpose. |
Archives