On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:06:04 +0000 (UTC)
Mark Bateman <couldbe@soon.com> wrote:
> > And it shouldn't be until it's gone through the proper process to
> > become a documented, controlled feature rather than an accident
> > people are exploiting.
> > 
> > Seriously, this isn't difficult to do. I get the impression people
> > are only trying to avoid doing it properly here so they can
> > establish a precedent of not doing things properly...
> 
> And if a developer would like to have it present in the main tree,
> sure push for an EAPI for it to be available in the main tree.

Uh, yes, and that's what was being discussed before you jumped in and
claimed that PMS should support it already.

> But as a feature that portage has that overlays can use it is useful.

Not if those overlays want to claim any degree of PMS compliance. I'll
remind you that not following PMS and instead relying upon flukes in
Portage behaviour means your overlay can stop working at any moment and
with no warning. It also means your overlay will only be usable with
Portage, which won't sit very well with users of the dozen or more
other tools that work with ebuilds and repositories.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh