"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@...> posted
8b4c83ad0806130322s560c4fb7u70cd03964108723c@..., excerpted
below, on  Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530:

> Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS
> is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of time" or
> "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis". It should
> follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible.

Ciaran's right on this one.  It may have been a bug in portage, now 
fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working 
PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old 
release media, however stale it might be.  If a current release happens 
before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, 
but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could.

Additionally, he and Brian both agree (!!) that out-of-tree portage 
config is outside the PMS domain, so the make.conf example doesn't have 
anything to do with PMS in any case.

Anyway, I agree with Brian in a different subthread post.  The council 
has met and this thread and discussions on it are stale, so best to let 
it die.  I'd have not replied here except after my earlier negative 
posts, I felt the need to provide some balance, and take the opportunity 
to point out that here, the Paludis devs are right, both practically 
(breaking new installs) and theoretically (out of PMS domain).

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list