| 1 |
On 03/30/2016 07:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 02:26 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 31 March 2016 at 01:49, Joakim Tjernlund |
| 4 |
>> <Joakim.Tjernlund@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> I am missing something? |
| 8 |
>>> Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should be |
| 9 |
>>> doable under a profile as well. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> So after you ignore my other stuff: Profiles are part of the PMS |
| 12 |
>> specification, so any changes that go in there have to be EAPI |
| 13 |
>> scheduled and cried over for a bit, and probably GLEPs and stuff also. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> I guess portage could informally support it prior to any such |
| 16 |
>> specification materialising, but it would have to be forbidden in the |
| 17 |
>> main tree until such a specification was defined, or the portage tree |
| 18 |
>> would become PMS in-compatible. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Yes, exactly! There is no need to use non PMS compatible features in |
| 21 |
> the gentoo tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
We hide extensions like this behind profile-formats settings in |
| 24 |
metadata/layout.conf. Please file a feature request bug for this at |
| 25 |
bugs.gentoo.org. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives