On pon, 2017-08-14 at 18:39 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > > <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is > > > debate on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug > > > request and makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and > > > PMS lacking anything on sets. > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 > > > > > > Just the needs I have with portage are stalled, marked as invalid. > > > No discussion for inclusion in PMS. Like documenting sets. > > > > Ah, well, that's the main mystery of this thread solved. Thanks. > > That is the tip of the iceberg, not the main problem itself. I have > never been a fan of EAPI, or the resulting PMS, etc. Having been around > before such existed, I do not believe it has helped Gentoo and in fact > maybe the opposite. Why EAPI 0 stuff is in tree, or very old EAPIs. > > Now becoming more real issues rather than just a dislike of EAPI. >
Yes, it would be much better if we didn't have EAPI and instead of old EAPI=0 ebuilds we would just have old ebuilds that install half-broken packages because of ebuild incompatibility. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
