| 1 |
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:18:53 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Wait, what? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "Where possible" ? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
You'd prefer us to do impossible things too? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's |
| 9 |
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) |
| 10 |
> leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it |
| 13 |
> breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour |
| 14 |
> instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have |
| 15 |
> created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely." |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
No, we're saying nothing of the sort. Please feel free to browse the history |
| 19 |
and see where we've changed both Paludis and PMS to match Portage, when we |
| 20 |
become aware of differences - preferably before posting such nonsense in |
| 21 |
future. |
| 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 |
Fortunately you don't have to think, you can just read Ciaran's explanation. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives