From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1E71381F3 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:30:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E706E097E; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:30:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97C39E0971 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE90D33DFAD for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:30:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.073, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.442, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z1jO6xwgh0fS for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:30:39 +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 84E9933BE50 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UX9ha-0000kD-V1 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:30:34 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:30:34 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:30:34 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation? Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:30:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20130429075549.06e8ad66@gentoo.org> <201304291436.42577.vapier@gentoo.org> <20130429194917.46d4985c@googlemail.com> <20862.56778.599974.921136@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130429215950.019cd23b@googlemail.com> <20862.62111.902255.208565@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130429232709.6d755604@googlemail.com> <20130430121213.330244bc@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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT f3d4165 /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: dd37cf73-f53f-4352-8cb1-a2f7e805f360 X-Archives-Hash: af7bdfde2892cee44c87a0813a6bc95d Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:12:13 +0100 as excerpted: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: >> There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully >> look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and (initially) >> implement it that way, in ordered to root out and get the bugs in the >> spec fixed. That said... > > I highly doubt the person implementing the code for Paludis was doing it > in a contrarian way. As far as I can see, he simply implemented what the > spec says. Not saying it has to be deliberate. There's some people who seem to just seem to have the gift. The way they think just naturally finds the bugs in the spec, the loophole in the law, whatever. They're terribly frustrating to people who equally naturally seem to find the most tolerant read of things, but if it was deliberate at some point years ago, it's no longer so; it just comes naturally. And what I'm saying is that as terribly frustrating as it can be, there's some value in that, because they /do/ end up finding the bugs/loopholes/ whatever, which is good as then they can be fixed. And there's some value in recognizing that good for what it is. Another analogy would be that these people are human versions of the kernel's trinity fuzz tester... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman