[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant'

[Mark Bateman <couldbe@soon.com>]

Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh <at> googlemail.com> writes:
> PMS documents what ebuilds may or may not rely upon from the package
> manager. PMS, like the Portage document, says that package.mask is a
> file.

And main tree ebuild can rely on that. There are no directory-based 
package.mask in the main portage tree


> 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. But as a feature that 
portage has that overlays can use it is useful.
Ebuilds in the main tree can still exist safe in the knowledge they won't 
have this