On 08/14/2013 11:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:50:36 +0800 > Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800 >>> Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> 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. >>> >>> It's not a question of "more true", it simply is true. Look at the >>> class line. >> >> Looking at, for example, kde overlay: >> https://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/kde.git;a=tree;f=sets;h=0e7389b34215915696d99fdb19e03c6d5ce1902f;hb=HEAD >> >> All the sets I've had a look at are a list of package atoms. >> >> No python code involved. None of your conspiracy theories supported. >> (Maybe it'd be easier to discuss this if there were a design document >> for it, but ain't no one got time for dat) >> >> So ... what was your claim again? > > Uhm. Look at the class line. > > https://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/kde.git;a=blob;f=sets.conf;h=1f4c4263f48e5360606c1acc97fbab64b03541b7;hb=HEAD >
... a static identifier. I would usually call that a constant. Now I get bored with your trolling. Goodbye.