On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 14:46 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:35:39 +0000 > Joakim Tjernlund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:46 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:45:48 +0000 > > > Joakim Tjernlund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 00:41 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > > > > > On 11/27/2015 12:24 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > > On a related note, could not profile-formats = portage-2 profile-set > > > > > > become default ? > > > > > > > > > > For purposes of interoperability, we use PMS to document the standard > > > > > profile format. So, in order to change the default profile format as > > > > > you > > > > > suggest, we would have to change PMS retroactively. Generally, > > > > > retroactive changes to PMS need to be very well justified in order to > > > > > be > > > > > accepted. > > > > > > > > hmm, how about in gentoo layout.conf? > > > > There seems to be additions there so perhaps one can add > > > > profile-formats = portage-2 profile-set ? > > > > > > This will break the two alternative package managers as profile-set is > > > only implemented in Portage. > > > > What about: > > # Use thin Manifests for Git > > thin-manifests = false > > > > # Sign Git commits, and NOT Manifests > > sign-commits = false > > sign-manifests = false > > > > Are these not fairly new too? How could these enter the gentoo repo? > > Hardly. They were both supported for a few years now (and used in many > repositories), and considered useful. > > > What about adding portage-2 now and announce profile-set to be added soon? > > Why? Most of us don't even have a clue what is it and how it works. > In fact, the name 'portage-*' implies it's non-standard extension that > can't be used where portability matters. >
portage-2 allows stacking of (custom) profiles, very useful I think. profile-set I think is needed for the @profile set, impl. in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=532224 Jocke
