1 |
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:46 +0530 |
2 |
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
4 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> >> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments |
8 |
> > (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions |
9 |
> > do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error |
10 |
> > (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline |
11 |
> > comments are used. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of |
14 |
> Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your |
15 |
> logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on "some [...] |
16 |
> [old] Portage versions" and does not specify current Portage |
17 |
> behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and |
18 |
> specifically portage) behaviour. |
19 |
|
20 |
But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline |
21 |
comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage |
22 |
versions. |
23 |
|
24 |
This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been |
25 |
since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs... |
26 |
|
27 |
> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline |
28 |
> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. |
29 |
|
30 |
Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was |
31 |
written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis |
32 |
gives an error. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |