| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 |
| 5 |
> > Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS |
| 7 |
> >> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. |
| 8 |
> >> It is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental |
| 9 |
> >> 2.2_alpha branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to |
| 10 |
> >> portage team, by the way :-)). |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation |
| 13 |
> >> flaws? Or maybe, architecture problems? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Because the Portage format involves executing arbitrary Python code |
| 16 |
> > that can depend in arbitrary ways upon undocumented Portage |
| 17 |
> > internals that can change between versions. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> You keep repeating that. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That doesn't make it more true. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's not a question of "more true", it simply is true. Look at the class |
| 24 |
line. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives