Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing PMS to Portage Manager Specification

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1390 bytes --]

On pon, 2017-08-14 at 18:39 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> > <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is
> > > debate on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug
> > > request and makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and
> > > PMS lacking anything on  sets.
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300
> > > 
> > > Just the needs I have with portage are stalled, marked as invalid.
> > > No discussion for inclusion in PMS. Like documenting sets.  
> > 
> > Ah, well, that's the main mystery of this thread solved.  Thanks.
> 
> That is the tip of the iceberg, not the main problem itself. I have
> never been a fan of EAPI, or the resulting PMS, etc. Having been around
> before such existed, I do not believe it has helped Gentoo and in fact
> maybe the opposite. Why EAPI 0 stuff is in tree, or very old EAPIs.
> 
> Now becoming more real issues rather than just a dislike of EAPI.
> 

Yes, it would be much better if we didn't have EAPI and instead of old
EAPI=0 ebuilds we would just have old ebuilds that install half-broken
packages because of ebuild incompatibility.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 988 bytes --]