On 2013-11-17, at 12:04 PM, Martin Vaeth <va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth: >> >>> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would >>> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection: >> >> Not really doable since this is explicitly defined as such in EAPI=5 PMS. >> >> Retroactively changing PMS is probably not a good idea. > > So keeping PMS is more important than usability? > Great! One must know where to put emphasis and keep > an unfortunate chosen detail forever (or, as experience > concerning EAPI upgrades shows, at least for decades) > in order to fulfill a nonsense bureoucracy which probably > at most 3 packages use, currently. Certainly, this is > more important than user experience! > > I assume this is about the *.use.stable.mask files ... we don't need to retroactively remove them from PMS, we just set a portage tree policy to leave them empty and ask everyone to not use it. PMS stays the same, support in package managers stays in, but the feature is effectively removed due to not being used. same end result without the breakage. that said, I still support *.use.stable.mask and would not like to see it removed or banned.
