On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:12:31 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > > 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. > > > > Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual > blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something > because of "lack of documentation" :S)
That's a very selective misinterpretation of the facts. If you want to reduce it to a few simple words, try "terrible format". -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
