1 |
On pon, 2017-08-14 at 18:39 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700 |
3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
6 |
> > <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is |
9 |
> > > debate on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug |
10 |
> > > request and makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and |
11 |
> > > PMS lacking anything on sets. |
12 |
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > Just the needs I have with portage are stalled, marked as invalid. |
15 |
> > > No discussion for inclusion in PMS. Like documenting sets. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > Ah, well, that's the main mystery of this thread solved. Thanks. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> That is the tip of the iceberg, not the main problem itself. I have |
20 |
> never been a fan of EAPI, or the resulting PMS, etc. Having been around |
21 |
> before such existed, I do not believe it has helped Gentoo and in fact |
22 |
> maybe the opposite. Why EAPI 0 stuff is in tree, or very old EAPIs. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Now becoming more real issues rather than just a dislike of EAPI. |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
Yes, it would be much better if we didn't have EAPI and instead of old |
28 |
EAPI=0 ebuilds we would just have old ebuilds that install half-broken |
29 |
packages because of ebuild incompatibility. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Best regards, |
33 |
Michał Górny |