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 1K6iLq-0003RJ-7S for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:40:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 399B3E0379; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:40:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.170]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4BEE0379 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so3653626wfg.10 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5uC1lTNnlwbkKFx2FBYzWBOik1mqQ8tzOSDmciFZts0=; b=adSK3FB5FAJEJe3ryvpL50Hc1BC1QhYNl/9bthBfKFW6e3eoeZ2JAYeiqW0VJ8UrFa mIGbgeXUZDItvMsJl47AOzpNbuHFXKUJQrwvTqdtOuCzKr46UQvh1GmbGeWM6zDEXpd3 eY7nNYtxhetEyTt15D0tzuj9Ijr1HnWdn/Xhk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=TcrHkG+0hUEw+PbgojbrnHzgT3ZXOK2D6IhSYrk/Cbb8cwg3fcSEmCX2Upgp5gdNUu RDtjmhe1N9/E+lJIUiwpOzq15ztbI460RuIbx0F2+hSCSZadNqXu9cVRDcMAXwyWkCRq Wxkh1RkRqPzFS4NQ+trLF6FZceeviFB7pdWR4= Received: by 10.142.186.9 with SMTP id j9mr362616wff.284.1213260007501; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seldon ( [98.210.154.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm1897772wfd.4.2008.06.12.01.40.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:06 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June] Message-ID: <20080612084006.GB16944@seldon.metaweb.com> References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080611215827.GB7074@comet> <20080612084128.7221bb09@googlemail.com> <4850D5AD.2090108@gentoo.org> <20080612090136.43f0beac@googlemail.com> <4850DA7F.7030406@gentoo.org> <20080612091651.1cec6558@googlemail.com> 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080612091651.1cec6558@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Archives-Salt: 1362bb78-c1a9-4018-ad4d-a9480b16749d X-Archives-Hash: 65593a378c229f4a751367c805c2ba0c --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 > Luca Barbato wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before > > > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If > > > package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible > > > thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. > >=20 > > Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are=20 > > complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. >=20 > Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers > think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims > to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0. Did it fully? =20 No, bugs existed. Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree. See the failing here? Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is=20 required when your own code hasn't met said standards. You're also dodging the fact that apparently you've known about eapi1=20 incompatibilities and intentionally withheld that information for=20 the apparent purpose of discrediting pkgcore. You've been stating for=20 a long while eapi1 support was broke- for the default iuse support=20 months back, and ongoing- I get the very strong vibe you've been=20 sitting on bugs for a long while. I've put up with lies from y'all for a long while- simplest gross=20 example is the claims pkgcore devs were forking the format when=20 in actuality paludis devs (you) were forking off exheres at the=20 time of the accusation. I'm accustomed to that bullshit, and I=20 stomach it because limited dealing with you benefits gentoo, at least=20 as long as you wield the political hammer that is PMS. What's over the line however is that via your withholding of=20 information, you intentionally allowing users to see breakage to try=20 and discredit the competition. That's not acceptable in any form. Actual bug reports, for ebuild=20 support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically=20 within same day. I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it=20 means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your=20 insepid games). The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two=20 back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional=20 breakage admittedly is not possible. However considering the=20 behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume=20 the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS. You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it=20 is pretty fricking sad. ~harring --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIUODmsiLx3HvNzgcRAqX4AKC67LbFjfoTKhbC4qtZLJDZeqwZwACfaFtj lmBT4lZG2WBl9vq85B2J0W8= =3upr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list