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 1M8Lix-00069k-De for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 24 May 2009 21:59:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04B1BE04C7; Sun, 24 May 2009 21:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dev.gentooexperimental.org (dev.gentooexperimental.org [81.93.240.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0055E04C7 for ; Sun, 24 May 2009 21:59:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lolcathost.localnet (xdsl-87-79-177-16.netcologne.de [87.79.177.16]) by dev.gentooexperimental.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF59A62A8A7 for ; Sun, 24 May 2009 23:59:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 23:59:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.30-rc6-git7; KDE/4.2.87; x86_64; ; ) References: <200905171820.27340.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <200905242316.13712.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090524222221.59172272@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090524222221.59172272@snowcone> 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="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200905242359.16171.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 5a8c0d5d-6527-4fbe-b90c-05a558217e92 X-Archives-Hash: 0ba17a82d5ac5e10f82dcf7ede667715 On Sunday 24 May 2009 23:22:21 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:16:13 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Okay, yes, Mr. Long was quite rude there (trying to fight fire with > > fire I guess). But in this case you're discussing rather subjective > > things again (how often is it the case that you don't have a cache?) > > that might not even be a problem. > > This is not in the least bit subjective. You don't have cache: > > * for any overlays you use Only partially correct (but you knew that already, so I won't bother repeating it) And with overlays you have _no_ guarantees anyway. Plus portage spews a nice warning if you play around with eclasses, which many users parse as an error. So that's not an issue anyway ... overlays are unsupported territory where the only assumption you can make is that things might not work (but surprisingly often they do) > * often enough for the main tree that we get people asking about it in > #paludis, since Paludis warns if it encounters stale cache files. Haven't seen that with portage (well duh), and if it really is a problem maybe we should ask grobian how he made the prefix rsync checkout consistent. Y'know, if it is a problem fix the problem. > We know full well that this is a real problem. Stop pretending that it > isn't. Well, we don't. Hmm, who is we in this context? Would be much nicer if we stopped using the pluralis majestatis to make us look more important. Anyways, if it is a problem it's mostly an issue of the cache generation, which is trivially fixed, or it's not a problem, in which case it is fixed already. Or it is an issue for everyone doing unsupported things, in which case ... it is not an issue. Because it's unsupported. So what was our point again? Anyways, this is going round and round in circles until someone gets dizzy and throws up. Not the best way to "discuss", and I'm getting really bored with it.