On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:53 +0530 "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
No, we're saying: "There are some things that Portage does that're so obviously weird or wrong that it's impossible to document that behaviour in a standard, so occasionally we'll have to consider Portage to have bugs." > 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. Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo releases supports inline comments in profiles? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
