On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:54:40 +0200 Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:56:09 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400 > > > > > Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some > > > > > > implementation flaws? Or maybe, architecture problems? > > > > > > > > > > Because the Portage format involves executing arbitrary Python > > > > > code that can depend in arbitrary ways upon undocumented > > > > > Portage internals that can change between versions. > > > > Why would we design a spec around "arbitrary list of class names > > that happen to be present in some particular version of Portage"? > > Yes, why would we? > > Consider that you can make the same statement without naming a PM... > > Nobody here has yet said that the spec has to be around that. What the > Portage format is and what Portage implements doesn't matter yet; what > really matters in this thread is, why it is not in the PMS yet. Er, look at the first post in the thread: "Now that portage-2.2 is in ~arch, we should now be able to add sets to the tree." "class = portage.sets.files.StaticFileSet" Please explain to me how this is not a thread about using Portage's internal-class-based sets format in the tree. > The discussion at stake here is "Can we add sets to the tree? If so, > should everyone be able to do that free or by prior discussion?" and I > don't think that any reply to this whole sub thread benefits anyone. The answer to that is the same as it's always been, and hasn't been changed by portage-2.2 being ~arch. In order for sets to be added to the tree, we need a spec, we need to decide where sets are allowed (package.mask?), and we need an implementation. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
