| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Patrick Lauer <bugs@××××××××××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly |
| 6 |
>>> experimental. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>> Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage |
| 12 |
> config files? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I |
| 15 |
don't like it? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is |
| 21 |
> the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS |
| 22 |
> can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than |
| 23 |
> writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you can |
| 26 |
claim things by referencing it as authoritative. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of interest |
| 29 |
there? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is |
| 32 |
obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS |
| 33 |
compatibility without being compatible to each other. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives