On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:34:51 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/14/2013 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2013-08-14, o godz. 16:53:17 > > Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > >> 14.08.2013 16:05, Rich Freeman пишет: > >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Michael Palimaka > >>> <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: Right now, however, > >>> it might be useful if only to get a sense for how they're being > >>> used, trade ideas, etc. > >> > >> Well, we can use sets as replacement for metapackages(for example, > >> qt-meta, leechcraft-meta). > >> > >> Well, as for leechcraft-meta, we can not simply replace > >> metapackage with set, cause we have unstable USE-flag there. > > > > No, we can't. Sets are portage-specific, the tree needs to follow > > PMS. > > > > PMS is a waste of time, we should drop it until people are able to > maintain it properly. They are obviously not.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding how PMS and Gentoo development works. No-one has (recently) proposed supporting sets in the tree to either the PMS team or the Council, so it's not in PMS. The point of having a spec isn't to document recent changes in Portage behaviour. The Council has decided that to be able to use something in the tree, it has to be in their most recently approved version of PMS. If you want to use sets in the tree, submit a proposal to the Council, and if they like then it a new version of PMS will be approved. > And their lack of time (to be polite) should not block general > progress in gentoo. "Lack of time" has got nothing to do with this not being in PMS. It's not in PMS because no-one's submitted a proposal for it that's gained Council approval. Perhaps these basic notions of how Gentoo development works should be added to the new developer quiz, so we can be sure people understand the appropriate ways of making changes and where the power lies. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
