On 08/14/2013 09:51 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:34:51 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 08/14/2013 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17 >>> Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >>> >>>> 14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет: >>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka >>>>> <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: Right now, however, >>>>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being >>>>> used, trade ideas, etc. >>>> >>>> Well, we can use sets as replacement for metapackages(for example, >>>> qt-meta, leechcraft-meta). >>>> >>>> Well, as for leechcraft-meta, we can not simply replace >>>> metapackage with set, cause we have unstable USE-flag there. >>> >>> No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow >>> PMS. >>> >> >> PMS is a waste of time, we should drop it until people are able to >> maintain it properly. They are obviously not. > > You're fundamentally misunderstanding how PMS and Gentoo development > works.
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding. I think gentoo should stop supporting downstreams IF supporting them means blocking progress. > >> And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general >> progress in gentoo. > > > Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works > You certainly are not an authority when it comes to that question...
