On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:50:56 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 > >> Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS > >>> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. > >>> It is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental > >>> 2.2_alpha branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to > >>> portage team, by the way :-)). > >>> > >>> Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation > >>> flaws? Or maybe, architecture problems? > >> Because the Portage format involves executing arbitrary Python code > >> that can depend in arbitrary ways upon undocumented Portage > >> internals that can change between versions. > >> > > You keep repeating that. > > > > That doesn't make it more true. > > > > Even if it were true, this does not stop pms from providing an > abstraction layer which provides the needed support despite the > details of the underlying implementation. The argument that > implementation details limit such possibilities is spurious and > should be ignored.
Why would we design a spec around "arbitrary list of class names that happen to be present in some particular version of Portage"? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
