From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Me4X4-0005Ex-O3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:06:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 57843E032A; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:06:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1616EE032A for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:06:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D7864A41 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:06:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.98 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.98 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.448, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LP9g1pHXleVw for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C635867216 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Me4WH-0007JU-LS for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:05:21 +0200 Received: from 91.85.186.84 ([91.85.186.84]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:05:21 +0200 Received: from slong by 91.85.186.84 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:05:21 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steven J Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant' Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:02:23 +0100 Organization: Friendly-Coders Message-ID: <12148931.hacUC6rHWN@news.friendly-coders.info> References: <90b936c0908121058y5fd25cfcm67a19761b1130896@mail.gmail.com> <200908122041.34205.scarabeus@gentoo.org> <20090812194656.47300704@snowcone> <20090813135658.2d497f7b@snowcone> <44655500.sygxnxrhqW@news.friendly-coders.info> <20090813193451.31961a95@snowcone> <3865504.XFPclIEk6a@news.friendly-coders.info> <4A8A447F.5050708@gentoo.org> 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: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.85.186.84 Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: cd58ddb5-e967-4281-9bcf-11a6301b86f9 X-Archives-Hash: fbd32705f3c47c7f91ee95d950a82fb2 R=C3=A9mi Cardona wrote: > Le 18/08/2009 03:30, Steven J Long a =C3=A9crit : > [snip] >=20 > Steven, >=20 > This thread was dead for more than 4 days. Yet you pick it up and you > try to pick a fight with Ciaran. > No I was answering the points he made, specifically he gave the fact that something's not used in the tree as a reason not to put it in PMS. The prior mail about an alternative perspective on the process was about his continual digs at portage and its developers. You're right that much of i= t was more relevant to -project, but when I post there it gets ignored: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_6c82019575749b628de20de0601= 49782.xml http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_28e2659029951f7edeab10b01cd= 21d53.xml =20 > I for one am tired of your behavior on this list Fair enough. I'm tired of ciaran's, and I'm bemused that you didn't take = the opportunity to contact me off-list to discuss this. I'm on IRC most of th= e time, as any of several Gentoo developers could have told you. > and I will not hesitate=20 > to contact UserRel to get you out of this list if you don't settle down > and start acting like an adult. > If you wish to raise a bug go ahead. As for being adult-like, you don't s= eem to have behaved so yourself, afaIc. No, some of us don't respond the very next minute, nor do we consider 4 days a long time. Perhaps for a student with far too much time on his hands, it might be. The main point I was talking about was the subversion of the GLEP process= by the EAPI one. You might have missed it; next time try reading the whole mail. =20 > Now step away from this thread. >=20 Done. --=20 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)