| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline |
| 4 |
> comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage |
| 5 |
> versions. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been |
| 8 |
> since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Which versions exactly? How old? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline |
| 14 |
>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was |
| 17 |
> written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis |
| 18 |
> gives an error. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. |
| 21 |
PMS is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of |
| 22 |
time" or "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and |
| 23 |
Paludis". It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely |
| 24 |
as possible. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives