| 1 |
On 08/14/2013 09:51 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:34:51 +0200 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 08/14/2013 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17 |
| 6 |
>>> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> 14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет: |
| 9 |
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka |
| 10 |
>>>>> <kensington@g.o> wrote: Right now, however, |
| 11 |
>>>>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being |
| 12 |
>>>>> used, trade ideas, etc. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> Well, we can use sets as replacement for metapackages(for example, |
| 15 |
>>>> qt-meta, leechcraft-meta). |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>> Well, as for leechcraft-meta, we can not simply replace |
| 18 |
>>>> metapackage with set, cause we have unstable USE-flag there. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow |
| 21 |
>>> PMS. |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> PMS is a waste of time, we should drop it until people are able to |
| 25 |
>> maintain it properly. They are obviously not. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> You're fundamentally misunderstanding how PMS and Gentoo development |
| 28 |
> works. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding. I think gentoo should |
| 31 |
stop supporting downstreams IF supporting them means blocking progress. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
>> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general |
| 35 |
>> progress in gentoo. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that question... |
Archives