"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530:
> Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS > is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of time" or > "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis". It should > follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible. Ciaran's right on this one. It may have been a bug in portage, now fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old release media, however stale it might be. If a current release happens before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could. Additionally, he and Brian both agree (!!) that out-of-tree portage config is outside the PMS domain, so the make.conf example doesn't have anything to do with PMS in any case. Anyway, I agree with Brian in a different subthread post. The council has met and this thread and discussions on it are stale, so best to let it die. I'd have not replied here except after my earlier negative posts, I felt the need to provide some balance, and take the opportunity to point out that here, the Paludis devs are right, both practically (breaking new installs) and theoretically (out of PMS domain). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [email protected] mailing list
