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

["William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1074 bytes --]

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.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]