| 1 |
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com> posted |
| 2 |
8b4c83ad0806130322s560c4fb7u70cd03964108723c@××××××××××.com, excerpted |
| 3 |
below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS |
| 6 |
> is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of time" or |
| 7 |
> "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis". It should |
| 8 |
> follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Ciaran's right on this one. It may have been a bug in portage, now |
| 11 |
fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working |
| 12 |
PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old |
| 13 |
release media, however stale it might be. If a current release happens |
| 14 |
before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, |
| 15 |
but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Additionally, he and Brian both agree (!!) that out-of-tree portage |
| 18 |
config is outside the PMS domain, so the make.conf example doesn't have |
| 19 |
anything to do with PMS in any case. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Anyway, I agree with Brian in a different subthread post. The council |
| 22 |
has met and this thread and discussions on it are stale, so best to let |
| 23 |
it die. I'd have not replied here except after my earlier negative |
| 24 |
posts, I felt the need to provide some balance, and take the opportunity |
| 25 |
to point out that here, the Paludis devs are right, both practically |
| 26 |
(breaking new installs) and theoretically (out of PMS domain). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 30 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 31 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives