| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you |
| 4 |
> suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage |
| 5 |
> does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like |
| 6 |
> them to be? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Wait, what? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
"Where possible" ? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's |
| 13 |
Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) |
| 14 |
leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
"We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it |
| 17 |
breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour |
| 18 |
instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have |
| 19 |
created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely." |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: |
| 24 |
inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing |
| 25 |
this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives