From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Enmyu-0006xG-Oo for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:04:57 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBI14EZN006234; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:04:14 GMT Received: from cubert.e-centre.net (morbo.e-centre.net [66.154.82.3]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBI12RX0020696 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:02:27 GMT Received: from [10.3.1.19] (helo=barracuda2.stayonline.net) by cubert.e-centre.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EnmwQ-0002N2-Jx for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:02:24 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1134867741-7578-28-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.3.1.19:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (unknown [65.200.64.131]) by barracuda2.stayonline.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 01BB3B2085 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from nightcrawler ([172.16.1.202]) by et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBI1285j009959 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:02:09 GMT Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:01:59 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [gentoo-dev] draft glep: multi-repo Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] draft glep: multi-repo Message-ID: <20051218010159.GF22142@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> References: <43A3C9A8.9050608@leetworks.com> <20051217231548.GB22142@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> <20051217232558.6bfccdab@snowdrop.home> <20051218001415.GD22142@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> <20051218002448.04bac00f@snowdrop.home> 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@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051218002448.04bac00f@snowdrop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at stayonline.net X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=4.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.6393 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Archives-Salt: 73cac4db-99e6-46a3-bf80-e42b1edbf153 X-Archives-Hash: a1bd82fe4f426e073db9a948c96ab847 --twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:24:48AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:14:15 -0800 Brian Harring > wrote: > | What remaining straw men are there for ignoring the portage=20 > | developers requests? >=20 > Asking you to specify how multiple repositories will work before I try > to extend the GLEP to support multiple repositories is hardly a straw > man argument. Do you need to know how every bit of a car works to drive it? No. We're simply asking you to tag in a repo_id to your calls to portage. =20 It's bloody simple, just need to know what you explicitly need from a=20 news client standpoint. Stop being a stubborn mule, and realize that you're trying to shove a=20 feature into portage that *we* have to maintain, including your built=20 in design flaw for N repos. If you can't accept our criticism and suggestions for your glep, tough=20 cookies, we're the ones stuck maintaining it, and the users are the=20 one stuck when we expand portage functionality (thus breaking your=20 implementation). > *shrug* But if you prefer, I'll change the GLEP to > support multiple repositories the way I'd like to see them done rather > than the way you'd like. Ciaranm, cut the word games and stupid threats. If you can't work with others, and actually understand that they may=20 not agree with your views (let alone be willing to have you dump a=20 mess on them), I suggest you leave the distro and go work on your=20 social skills. Propose the glep however you want. As long as the glep is around, I'm going to do the same you do- point=20 out the flaws in it. If you're unwilling to even nail down what is=20 needed so that all parties are happy, that's fine- I would expect the=20 council to realize the glep (heavily affecting the portage group,=20 since server and client side mods fall on our head) needs to be worked=20 out further and thus reject it. Or, you stop debating the fact portage group might have a say in this,=20 and start discussing what needs to be done so progress is made. Balls in your court, you know we view it as unacceptable right now, if=20 you're not willing to work with us there isn't much that can be done. ~harring --twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDpLUHvdBxRoA3VU0RAhJmAKDM5lvLx8/LQfupB8Cw0x3md18iTQCgo7Hp sCV19Lv+5QcliK+1SKNvDq8= =xU1D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list