From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j28FLrII032141 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:21:53 GMT Received: from [62.254.189.226] (helo=snowdrop) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.42) id 1D8gWu-0000aA-7J for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:21:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop) by snowdrop with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D8gWO-0000Oz-Ai for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:21:20 +0000 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:21:17 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE groups) and negatives Message-ID: <20050308152117.543b7e36@snowdrop> In-Reply-To: <20050307192415.GA23754@kfk4ever.com> References: <20050306162849.247c8c8f@snowdrop> <20050307192415.GA23754@kfk4ever.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.1 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Signature_Tue__8_Mar_2005_15_21_17_+0000_JECgO5Rx37S91DQQ; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 X-Archives-Salt: 8b75e248-d5b8-4b10-a977-ebff1bf0b0a1 X-Archives-Hash: 445a304e71f792318be381c48a729c60 --Signature_Tue__8_Mar_2005_15_21_17_+0000_JECgO5Rx37S91DQQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:24:15 +0100 Maurice van der Pot wrote: | > I'm in favour of 2) personally, but others disagree. I'd like a | > proper discussion on this before trying to get the GLEP through. |=20 | What I am still missing is a good argument _FOR_ negatives. We are | talking about negatives within groups, right? I agree with you that if | we choose 2, sooner or later it's going to get screwed up. We must | have a better reason for allowing them than just the off chance that | negatives might be useful in a way we cannot forsee yet. Reasons we want to allow negatives: * They are useful in certain situations. * They could reasonably be expected to work -- negatives work in other places. * Not supporting negatives simply because they cause complications is basically admitting that we suck. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature_Tue__8_Mar_2005_15_21_17_+0000_JECgO5Rx37S91DQQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCLcLv96zL6DUtXhERAi9eAJ0XrdnVPmwC2HIBfkj2CkDko+kydwCfe6CN TOQySoaId11Im4l17q08itY= =xJtC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature_Tue__8_Mar_2005_15_21_17_+0000_JECgO5Rx37S91DQQ-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list