| 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 |
Archives