1 |
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:53 +0530 |
2 |
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's |
4 |
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) |
5 |
> leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it |
8 |
> breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour |
9 |
> instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have |
10 |
> created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely." |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is. |
13 |
|
14 |
No, we're saying: |
15 |
|
16 |
"There are some things that Portage does that're so obviously weird or |
17 |
wrong that it's impossible to document that behaviour in a standard, so |
18 |
occasionally we'll have to consider Portage to have bugs." |
19 |
|
20 |
> PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: |
21 |
> inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing |
22 |
> this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. |
23 |
|
24 |
Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo |
25 |
releases supports inline comments in profiles? |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |