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 1SQLwd-0004tK-NI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 May 2012 17:05:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F1DD2E068E; Fri, 4 May 2012 17:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A18E0676 for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466D41B401C for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.115 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.367, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.164, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25voCXrr6QWP for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 17:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65D861B400D for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 17:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SQLvR-0004M5-Il for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 04 May 2012 19:04:13 +0200 Received: from 91.85.61.115 ([91.85.61.115]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 04 May 2012 19:04:13 +0200 Received: from slong by 91.85.61.115 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 04 May 2012 19:04:13 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steven J Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 18:08:47 +0100 Organization: Friendly-Coders Message-ID: References: <20120330150041.c3f7684c.axel@james-b.ch> <4F75B45F.2050108@gentoo.org> <4F76226B.1020507@gentoo.org> <4F762BCF.9010204@cs.stonybrook.edu> <20120331085622.5650ca62@googlemail.com> <20120331105253.4a00ebcc@googlemail.com> <20120331100636.GB19939@localhost> <20120331155900.76c2a72a@googlemail.com> <20120401175648.292ad3ed@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: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.85.61.115 X-Archives-Salt: 02c474c9-6078-49b5-9246-6a556af8bc08 X-Archives-Hash: 9f3c93168730fd50370a700a1501be3a Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:04:11 +0100 > Steven J Long wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't >> > already been explained, I say how to fix it. >> Oh? Where on Earth did you do that in this thread? All you've said so >> far is that preserve-libs is "an awful hack that doesn't really work, >> is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in subtle >> ways." No reasoning given whatsoever. Nor any indication of how to >> fix anything. > > preserve-libs has been discussed to death previously and elsewhere. The > changes needed to implement it correctly were included in the original > EAPI 3, but were dropped due to lack of Portage implementation. The usual protocol when you're making assertions like that, if it's already been discussed, is to provide a url or two to prior discussion. Or at least state which feature(set) it is you think which does that. After lots of reading, and recent discussion, you appear to believe that SLOT operators are the "conceptually sound" method of choice that doesn't "break things in subtle ways". Is that correct? > There's no need to repeat the whole discussion here. No, just provide evidence and reasoning for any assertions you make, especially when you are criticising someone else's work. You don't have to repeat yourself: just link to the issues, if you can't summarise them yourself. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)