On Friday 21 of August 2009 23:46:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:42:11 +0200
> PMS accurately reflected the Portage documentation at the time it was > written and at the time it was approved. Agreed, but I think it was supposed to reflect Portage 'behaviour' at the time. Of course it's hard to blame anyone for it, especially after all these years. > The correct way to proceed is to use EAPI 4 to move this to be a > specified feature, and to permit it only for profiles marked as using > EAPI 4. It's true, but being able to modularize profile may outweights the need to be strict-with-the-book here - it's a matter of usefulness. I think it should be decided by those who actually do the work in profile, whether it's worthy to push this now instead of waiting for EAPI approval. So, can profile developers share their view? -- regards MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
