On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:20AM +0100, David Leverton wrote: > On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton > > > There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason > > > applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS > > > doesn't allow them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic. > > > > Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why. > > The same reason the Ciaran already explained in this very thread.
Ciaran/Company actually are subtly wrong on this one. Reason is
miscommunication/misreading.
Quoting the original flamebait posting by patrick-
"""
Test case is:
FEATURES="strict" # test and stricter fail
in make.conf ... <flamebait>
"""
Note 'make.conf'. User configuration.
Not make.profile, or any other profile file.
Meaning not under PMS jurisdiction, via the line in the sand ciaran
has drawn to exclude portage configuration from PMS.
Now if the discussion *was* about profile files, yes, inline comments
are not allowed due to backwards compatibility requirements.
In other words, ciaran is wrong about make.conf, but right about
make.defaults and friends, which is what he probably interpretted the
thread about. Screwups happen, unfortunately w/ the air of gentoo-dev
being one of hostility, it sprawls into mega-threads like this.
Either way, this isn't particularly relevant to -dev; belongs on
-project at best, else the paludis mls due to it being a discussion of
paludis incompatibility with existing portage configuration support.
Hopefully the statements above clear up any further reason for this
thread to continue, so kindly leave it dead/buried.
Cheers,
~harring
pgp3RhBf3NiGd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
