From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K761y-0007LE-TV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:57:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77815E064E; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.169]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2191FE064E for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z27so54984ugc.49 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=KvpnB5XoqLd4JBXBsRMtNunW2DHa5nXMcD/EjzZp43A=; b=o1tWT62YBHStzJUur6oLyNPhYxvb4LbDrPWqSIZb1C1ghCTBcsBa328Di+OAbf4sVB g4FIXviFwh7Ps3Bf+htBZKPzfJZfLCthKQo7zpjrKO428AxBjl8xavFc+//avZnolqmN rBNX8LE2VCMvtVLpdeQONhGcr44LswU25aZpA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=XuLXZTgLjlX5TjRxsHPwBFmacaAKAiBLg6iJGO83DfRKwD4ckusdW7A4rBznRLmlzo z7eeBbz8zGdwatWWutvdxgylrNS2GHK7HECt1GbIQZdLUxgikV70kDKVbJ8hMsw0ixIc 5sDIeGdyx7ULjwLXN/Jqf64eczvFzENOkZUow= Received: by 10.66.250.17 with SMTP id x17mr721014ugh.15.1213351032206; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ( [213.121.151.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u1sm1044163uge.75.2008.06.13.02.57.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:57:03 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June] Message-ID: <20080613105703.51a5ca18@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4852437E.1090809@dev.gentooexperimental.org> References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080612212148.GB14670@basestar> <200806122258.26896.levertond@googlemail.com> <75f3dce80806121813y5d417574kb7283c285e296562@mail.gmail.com> <20080613062612.46931b33@googlemail.com> <4852375F.7010201@dev.gentooexperimental.org> <7DB0FAE7-6F92-43D5-BB33-0048403A0281@gentoo.org> <48523AEF.2020608@dev.gentooexperimental.org> <20080613102240.4ba5d144@googlemail.com> <4852437E.1090809@dev.gentooexperimental.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/n9vKyVCpJhoR63CHV=av3io"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: dbc609f3-3dcd-4a8d-868d-5d85cd5b67c9 X-Archives-Hash: bd95720d53c30f0d4915490c4ad53126 --Sig_/n9vKyVCpJhoR63CHV=av3io Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200 Patrick Lauer wrote: > > You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage > > config files? > > =20 > I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I=20 > 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.=20 > So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you > can claim things by referencing it as authoritative. >=20 > Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of > interest there? >=20 > I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is=20 > obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS=20 > 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? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/n9vKyVCpJhoR63CHV=av3io Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkhSRHIACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG6WQCgkd1VdgObvqGdtFjL6AAQyLkH 2NcAoMw49b6QtDR26mt3Rd1xjWqYMigv =YaIN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/n9vKyVCpJhoR63CHV=av3io-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list