| 1 |
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 02:26 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 31 March 2016 at 01:49, Joakim Tjernlund |
| 3 |
> <Joakim.Tjernlund@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I am missing something? |
| 7 |
> > Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should be |
| 8 |
> > doable under a profile as well. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So after you ignore my other stuff: Profiles are part of the PMS |
| 11 |
> specification, so any changes that go in there have to be EAPI |
| 12 |
> scheduled and cried over for a bit, and probably GLEPs and stuff also. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I guess portage could informally support it prior to any such |
| 15 |
> specification materialising, but it would have to be forbidden in the |
| 16 |
> main tree until such a specification was defined, or the portage tree |
| 17 |
> would become PMS in-compatible. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes, exactly! There is no need to use non PMS compatible features in |
| 20 |
the gentoo tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Jocke |
Archives