| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:16:18 +0100 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> My understanding is that the cvs tree should be PMS compatible and |
| 4 |
> since 'sets' are not part of PMS that means that it would be wise not |
| 5 |
> to use them yet. |
| 6 |
> It is unfortunate that nobody seems to have realized that all these |
| 7 |
> years that 2.2.X was masked :-/ |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I don't think it's a question of not realising it. As I understand it, |
| 10 |
no-one's proposed Portage-format sets to the Council because we all |
| 11 |
agree it's not suitable for the tree in its current form. The sets in |
| 12 |
Portage 2.2 are fine as a user feature, but not as a tree feature. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives