From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IcfF9-0000fF-IY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:44:48 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l92AY5sb028173; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:34:05 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l92ASnn3018558 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:28:49 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E5D64B93 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:28:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 06:28:47 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200710012259.40589.uberlord@gentoo.org> <20071002094920.GL24867@gentoo.org> <1191319761.6284.35.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> In-Reply-To: <1191319761.6284.35.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> 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; boundary="nextPart1823891.gMfuxg3MSo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200710020628.47971.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: aa9dfbd7-02c4-46bc-ac0c-f6324dad3ead X-Archives-Hash: 4041696dd63393123438f70bb1dc57c2 --nextPart1823891.gMfuxg3MSo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My > > question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta > > information interpretation definition. In other words, if project X > > says their code should be compiled with GCC, what are the benefits > > exactly if you change that into "should be compiled with a C99 compliant > > compiler", considering you are eventually interested in the produced > > code only. (Is it worth it to teach/force devs to use something else > > if this is only how to obtain the end product, which should run with > > "anything"?) > > project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny > the ICC users the ability to compile it? that is project X's decision and no one else's. dont pull a stallman on us= =20 and force everyone to subscribe to your ideas of "freedom". there's a reas= on=20 we told him to take a hike. =2Dmike --nextPart1823891.gMfuxg3MSo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARwIdX0FjO5/oN/WBAQLx+xAApn/06vd5bNVSdBiUKWqM5Fd/GvjOVBhS rGguUaHnB1jjc+n6INVmBxzmSQf9XVKNw3B+flNE0m79+Okwaf5+ni5iprH8uonS d8bJod6jaqObsIbHImzAfqhZeuH0t3MgDQYnb4pJcVvtvd8ibZzGNOPzFfetYp/A L5bKrq6mvRXjcOF7PGVExZcvXbQC0HshT8ihomyvAEdM9XemIdk1w32QpUD08I+t Sl5LMM7CJxxAAIY9grF9VrbyU3YFCeEMhXDw0OchcRhy7dlCwMeIuFkVcspTpnUO iUZJgsZiCAf4pEJpa95VoWI+okwr1Stf1F3WyOWVNCTtC9zKZfAfNqJWEdRzTCRf ekgIUqf+xEYH3AgzkOpAtp+FGKUD76McjPpDYeKzLKBUA6IxWjf/NKT1ht+4gDEI Ly97LX+6Dn4uYMtBJrArL1Rvgw2ADXTSreQpv1jrujOqoUJBxgk+/kd9SmEpbNty 6wnfAULnumQw0ePJqfuYfx7ApEOxNMbgD61XHzxKN0N5qzDKvjJu4/7kc72AVR7z HzzA5h4YKeYHAOSyOPgCcBkaXcCiBaFTNJ+f5m2dCco20fgnNH7rkZP7q4yRoaXs WPgasvWsKHVkvA2K2pvI+wLRhJdTbgAEuMi7QMa6IK3qtAu+s3QhkHzHvAFlWSDq 9qmDIF1KRFM= =LtTn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1823891.gMfuxg3MSo-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list