1 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:42:11 +0200 |
2 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > How does changing the portage documentation magically add this to |
4 |
> > the PMS? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> PMS developers are unwilling to fix many bugs in PMS. |
7 |
|
8 |
This is not a bug in PMS. |
9 |
|
10 |
PMS accurately reflected the Portage documentation at the time it was |
11 |
written and at the time it was approved. In addition, there was no real |
12 |
world use of this feature so there was no grounds to consider making it |
13 |
part of the specification despite it being undocumented. Thus, the way |
14 |
PMS was written was correct. |
15 |
|
16 |
What you are asking for would be like retroactively updating the HTML 4 |
17 |
specification to mandate a particular undocumented quirk of Internet |
18 |
Explorer 6's behaviour. |
19 |
|
20 |
The correct way to proceed is to use EAPI 4 to move this to be a |
21 |
specified feature, and to permit it only for profiles marked as using |
22 |
EAPI 4. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |