Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting".
> 
> You're still failing to understand the point of labels parsing rules,
> though: the point is to make uses like the above well defined and
> consistent.

I understand them just fine; you're just either very fucking daft, 
which I have a hard time believing, or lieing through your teeth 
(which fits a decade of behaviour including multiple suspensions for 
exactly that behaviour).

Implicit labels context is build+run.  Meaning the following
> x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting".

is actually

build+run x? ( build: a run: b )

Which isn't a nested conflict- subset, not conflict.

You argue labels are required so people can do nested conflicts; 
meaning the following extreme example:

run x? ( build: a test: b )

And as I nicely pointed out, /not a single fucking exheres/ does that.  
you've yet to pull out an example contradicting that analysis in 
addition.


So... with that in mind- I'm doing two things; 1) can't force you 
back under a bridge, instead I'll do the killfile equivalent for a few 
weeks, 2) my original proposal if you kept being a tool seems 
appropriate:

"""
As said, you come up w/ real world examples, I'll include them; else
persist and I'll just fold the academic wankery description of labels
into the glep if you'd truly like me to (or you piss me off enough I
do so to be a dick).
"""

What I truly love about that solution there is that it's both 
accurate, and if I play my cards right, I may be able to get a glep 
passed calling your proposal academic wankery; minimally, it'll be fun 
from my standpoint to try, so at least something came out of the last 
few emails from you.

hugs and kisses-
~harring