On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:46 +0530 "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > > I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of > Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your > logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on "some [...] > [old] Portage versions" and does not specify current Portage > behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and > specifically portage) behaviour.
But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage versions. This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs... > Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline > comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis gives an error. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
