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 1Lc0Pk-000549-ID for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:45:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 61085E042D; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3890FE042D for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [67.40.138.82] (crater.wildlava.net [67.40.138.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46E164B65 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:45:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49A42438.7080002@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:45:44 -0700 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090110) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <1235378286.31617.6.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A26B84.7040006@gentoo.org> <1235383347.12908.0.camel@neuromancer.neuronics-tp.ch> <49A2B276.1000109@gentoo.org> <49A41D3F.4010706@gentoo.org> <20090224162128.02c69851@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090224162128.02c69851@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 86b31bd6-32a9-4afa-8a12-7b3cbdd8b15c X-Archives-Hash: 42a56515209c3cc6a590e63a8560c33d Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> All good points. I cannot believe there exists no other way to solve >> this technical issue other than resorting to such a non-Unix-like >> idea. Obviously all of the software packages cited above endeavor to >> avoid such nastiness. > > Then why don't you come up with a viable solution? I already have - look back at my posts; very similar to Rich0's idea. And I tire of the argument that if one doesn't have a perfect solution now, we should adopt a half-brained one. The point of this is to spur discussion to come up with a better solution. > For the same reason they're willing to accept the package name and > version in the filename. The fact that you think this is the same thing as having the EAPI in the filename is odd. > "If you paint the bikeshed, I shall throw my toys out of the pram and > run off crying.". > > Why don't you propose a viable alternative instead of making threats? Not a threat. And this will be my last post on the topic. I will not take your bate and continue to argue, creating more noise on this list - I've expressed how I feel. -Joe