Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:56:09 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> napisał(a):
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:50:56 -0400 > "Anthony G. Basile" <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 08/14/2013 11:41 AM, Patrick Lauer 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: > > >>> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS > > >>> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'. > > >>> It is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental > > >>> 2.2_alpha branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to > > >>> portage team, by the way :-)). > > >>> > > >>> 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. > > >> > > > You keep repeating that. > > > > > > That doesn't make it more true. > > > > > > > Even if it were true, this does not stop pms from providing an > > abstraction layer which provides the needed support despite the > > details of the underlying implementation. The argument that > > implementation details limit such possibilities is spurious and > > should be ignored. > > Why would we design a spec around "arbitrary list of class names that > happen to be present in some particular version of Portage"? Well, I'm pretty sure I *asked* at some point to have the thing formalized, and therefore replacing portage class names with some official abstract package set classes. As far as I remember, it ended up like 'we don't want anything except plain simple package lists'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
