From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C84E31396D0 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDB22E0EB4; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6DCBE0EA0 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7291934105A for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:04:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Of death and prerm To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <09043e39-bcec-f73b-683e-17de59b8e5d5@gentoo.org> <1504085131.22591.6.camel@gentoo.org> <22950.48395.341926.871114@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <3bcaff62-f90f-fd6a-f53f-dba921edfc07@gentoo.org> <22950.49209.348653.293397@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <8e9cbce2-dba0-6d28-4d01-c32f41e9a12c@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:04:29 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3aacb5fd-4512-49b7-aa8d-45d1ec9d3cb2 X-Archives-Hash: 9635e280b5402a4d491d973a62976327 On 08/30/2017 09:46 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > For adding this to FEATURES and RESTRICT, are we moving into PMS > modification territory? And if so, is this something we want to do > just for this? > The new RESTRICT value would need a PMS update, but the "just for this" part is where it gets good. The only reason I need it is for a reference implementation of the idea that needs it, to determine if the idea is any good or not. It would be a lot of trouble to go through just to find out that my proposal is junk.