On 9/12/19 11:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > I'm really objecting to your suggestion that we abuse an existing > Portage/PMS feature to do something beyond its design. Adding > fictitious runtime dependencies is wrong, and seems like a very lazy > solution.
Ok, you're right. > If you want to propose an extension to PMS to handle this situation, > that's something I can support. Portage and the PMS are fine. This junk belongs in an overlay.
