| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 |
| 2 |
Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS |
| 4 |
> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. It |
| 5 |
> is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental 2.2_alpha |
| 6 |
> branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to portage team, |
| 7 |
> by the way :-)). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation flaws? |
| 10 |
> Or maybe, architecture problems? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Because the Portage format involves executing arbitrary Python code |
| 13 |
that can depend in arbitrary ways upon undocumented Portage internals |
| 14 |
that can change between versions. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives