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 1JgFgx-0001Fc-PM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:48:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CFEFE04C1; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.152]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057B3E04C1 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:48:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 13so2217585fge.14 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.59.2 with SMTP id h2mr4328627fga.19.1206953313269; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.70.16 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <97a4d67e0803310148p36063d34oe82a252afbe00ab8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:48:33 +0200 From: "Anders Ossowicki" Sender: and@vennemindenet.dk To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename) In-Reply-To: <47F0A0ED.40405@dev.gentooexperimental.org> 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/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4461_29694934.1206953313250" References: <20080330023902.GA8787@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20080330034811.39942523@snowcone> <200803310940.45136.bangert@gentoo.org> <97a4d67e0803310049j34de0ae1jc7ecff5563141d7e@mail.gmail.com> <47F0A0ED.40405@dev.gentooexperimental.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4764c8cdf72a89bd X-Archives-Salt: 0cfac79c-78cc-4e05-95a6-0262d9b029c1 X-Archives-Hash: 385d53db41835538ef143d9efa8a6d41 ------=_Part_4461_29694934.1206953313250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 31/03/2008, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Anders Ossowicki wrote: > > On 31/03/2008, *Thilo Bangert* > > > wrote: > > > > > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > > > 'fixed' via specification next time... > > > > maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities are > > failing me, but i find the above sentence highly offensive. > > > > > > pkgcore crashes on ebuilds with explicit -r0 in the PV, which led to > > Brian Harring bringing this entire discussion up in the first place. > > Rather than getting pkgcore to handle -r0 correctly, he decided to try > > and get it banned through the specification. > > That bug has been adressed, still leaves the underlying problem wether > to allow this ambiguity or not. Excellent - now that light has been shed on this minor detail, I'm sure you won't see that comment on pkgcore bugs again. If you have the patience to read the > pingpong between Harring and McCreesh the current discussion is wether > that format even makes sense, not wether a fixed bug in a third-party > app is relevant. I'm pretty sure the aforementioned pingpong started as a result of a pkgcore bug. Thilo referred to one of Ciaran's first replies and as such, I see no reason to regard that reply as an ad hominem attack. Enough, I was only replying to a question brought up by Thilo, and I do not want to waste time on an endless discussion with other gentoo users. -- Anders Ossowicki ------=_Part_4461_29694934.1206953313250 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 31/03/2008, Patrick Lauer <bugs@dev.gentooexperimental.org> wrote:
Anders Ossowicki wrote:
> On 31/03/2008, *Thilo Bangert* <bangert@gentoo.org

> <mailto:bangert@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>
>     > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs
>     > 'fixed' via specification next time...
>
>     maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities are
>     failing me, but i find the above sentence highly offensive.
>
>
> pkgcore crashes on ebuilds with explicit -r0 in the PV, which led to
> Brian Harring bringing this entire discussion up in the first place.
> Rather than getting pkgcore to handle -r0 correctly, he decided to try
> and get it banned through the specification.

That bug has been adressed, still leaves the underlying problem wether
to allow this ambiguity or not.

Excellent - now that light has been shed on this minor detail, I'm sure you won't see that comment on pkgcore bugs again.

If you have the patience to read the
pingpong between Harring and McCreesh the current discussion is wether
that format even makes sense, not wether a fixed bug in a third-party
app is relevant.

I'm pretty sure the aforementioned pingpong started as a result of a pkgcore bug. Thilo referred to one of Ciaran's first replies and as such, I see no reason to regard that reply as an ad hominem attack.

Enough, I was only replying to a question brought up by Thilo, and I do not want to waste time on an endless discussion with other gentoo users.
--
Anders Ossowicki <and@vmn.dk> ------=_Part_4461_29694934.1206953313250-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list