On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
You can set up a Paludis config. It's nice and easy. > > 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. 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? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
