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 1SiTwA-0002Im-V2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:15:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7990FE0BE0; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29CEE07FD for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:14:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from leo.local (ip-62-143-188-179.unitymediagroup.de [62.143.188.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jlec) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC6821B4002; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FE5F986.1000608@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:14:46 +0200 From: Justin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120616 Thunderbird/13.0 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] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots References: <20120623142143.631d7ebf@googlemail.com> <4FE5EB23.5040600@gentoo.org> <20120623171704.4f24cba6@googlemail.com> <4FE5F31E.80608@gentoo.org> <20120623175324.038ca62e@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120623175324.038ca62e@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5EA255E544E234DA9BF23C1B" X-Archives-Salt: e63b6227-d47b-477e-b93a-d1dd864a938f X-Archives-Hash: 877c2befa68627db9091e202bc1e5d38 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5EA255E544E234DA9BF23C1B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23.06.2012 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200 > Justin wrote: >> On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 >>> Justin wrote: >>>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from >>>> others? Probably you better should. >>> >>> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between >>> knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" >>> is. >>> >> >> Might be right, but that doesn't allow you to break your own rules. >> Plus I still don't get the problem of using SLOTS in the way they are >> used now. >=20 > "My own rules" are that enough material is presented that the relevant > people understand it. If you look at simple proposals like usex, silent= > rules or EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, you'll see quite clearly that we ask for > very little in the way of text in cases where the change is easily > understood. >=20 >> And I can't find this out by simply googling. In contrast, an >> explanation of multilib in context of linux distribution and more >> specific gentoo can be found easily. >=20 > Oh really? I was under the impression that there wasn't even general > agreement upon whether or not multilib applied to "C" or to "C, and > Python, and things like it". >=20 >> Stop acting in this arrogant way you are doing right now. >=20 > Come on. Submitting a simple proposal with at least as much detail as > was provided for other, equally simple proposals is "arrogant" now? >=20 >>> That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so >>> there's no need to repeat it here. >> >> Ever heard about references. They are good, if you don't like to >> repeat what is written, but which are necessary context to understand >> what you are writing. You should use them for the sake of >> understanding, if you are to lazy to write it out again. >=20 > Please take a look at the proposal for EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, and say where= > it references what "phase functions" are, or the proposal for usex and > say where it references what "use flags" are, or the proposal for > silent rules where it references what "econf" is. >=20 >>>> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge >>>> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going >>>> wrong. >>> >>> As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's >>> about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until >>> the root cause is solved properly. >> >> My clear vote is No. We shouldn't implement anything which allows bad >> coding anywhere, just for the sake of having it "solved" now. >=20 > The bad coding has already happened. Are you volunteering to revert the= > Ruby virtuals? >=20 I give up. And actually I don't care anymore. When I saw the first people leaving this project, because of all this non social bitching, I thought by myself, this will never happen to me. But the amount of fruitful discussion here is so less compared to the shire amount crap coming through, that it is not worth following it. justin --------------enig5EA255E544E234DA9BF23C1B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAk/l+YYACgkQgAnW8HDreRYYCACeOduWNYO/8rKiSUlO8VM0olXM nIUAoMR3DRJRkuBK43Psp3B5tOLOSB+2 =mIR5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5EA255E544E234DA9BF23C1B--