On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you > suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage > does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like > them to be?
Wait, what? "Where possible" ? PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely." I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is. PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
