| 1 |
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <bugs@××××××××××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage |
| 4 |
> > config files? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I |
| 7 |
> don't like it? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You can set up a Paludis config. It's nice and easy. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments |
| 12 |
> > (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions |
| 13 |
> > do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error |
| 14 |
> > (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline |
| 15 |
> > comments are used. |
| 16 |
> So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you |
| 17 |
> can claim things by referencing it as authoritative. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of |
| 20 |
> interest there? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is |
| 23 |
> obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS |
| 24 |
> compatibility without being compatible to each other. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you |
| 27 |
suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage |
| 28 |
does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like |
| 29 |
them to be? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives