Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly
experimental.
Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant.
You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage
config files?
I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I
don't like it?
And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is
the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS
can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than
writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used.
So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you can
claim things by referencing it as authoritative.
Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of interest
there?
I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is
obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS
compatibility without being compatible to each other.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
