Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Adding sets to @world in custom profile?

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:35:39 +0000
Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@××××××××.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:46 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:45:48 +0000
> > Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@××××××××.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 00:41 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > > On 11/27/2015 12:24 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:  
> > > > > On a related note, could not profile-formats = portage-2 profile-set
> > > > > become default ?  
> > > >
> > > > For purposes of interoperability, we use PMS to document the standard
> > > > profile format. So, in order to change the default profile format as you
> > > > suggest, we would have to change PMS retroactively. Generally,
> > > > retroactive changes to PMS need to be very well justified in order to be
> > > > accepted.  
> > >
> > > hmm, how about in gentoo layout.conf?
> > > There seems to be additions there so perhaps one can add
> > > profile-formats = portage-2 profile-set ?
> >
> > This will break the two alternative package managers as profile-set is
> > only implemented in Portage.
>
> What about:
> # Use thin Manifests for Git
> thin-manifests = false
>
> # Sign Git commits, and NOT Manifests
> sign-commits = false
> sign-manifests = false
>
> Are these not fairly new too? How could these enter the gentoo repo?

Hardly. They were both supported for a few years now (and used in many
repositories), and considered useful.

> What about adding portage-2 now and announce profile-set to be added soon?

Why? Most of us don't even have a clue what is it and how it works.
In fact, the name 'portage-*' implies it's non-standard extension that
can't be used where portability matters.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>