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 7146D138010 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:01:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25C3121C029; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763CF21C01E; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbcwz12 with SMTP id wz12so8546027pbc.40 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 02:01:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=lnIUPilchCsliqp+UDnq6/wfSJ4By9GZJFoF8ufQ4fo=; b=iHXi3TZd3mGJTw6g00MY7VSu9BPr6ojsS3C3qrr3NolVpJLfKOwIoex7NlIAq0qouR Y1l3i582M/RLru1cwKakg3KBLRPqFE/lwm+k/J/P5vgVY5p6uTVhJX3TjOUrthjLPFZj we814skNqtiOwK9PPW3DiNW4pL3OXhl1+ZOacGWouR4BxoxX7/wlbX62l+pdPMFRdIKN omUjVOJPV0FmWoq89qS0PXOf8ajTtRnOZQasOioZ448MhW7DFML40G4dz3BnKAjz62Wc wNqybMQKKMcQ9NOjmNxlfUenBlyj/9F0kqP+q77kBE0VFLBa0KLb/yNdKN75ABIIMiXJ ++1Q== Received: by 10.68.242.9 with SMTP id wm9mr39227515pbc.62.1349082093684; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 02:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oj2sm9615981pbb.26.2012.10.01.02.01.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 01 Oct 2012 02:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 01 Oct 2012 02:01:32 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:01:32 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Ciaran McCreesh Cc: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Message-ID: <20121001090132.GB14301@localhost> References: <20120916160528.GD23030@localhost> <20120916175921.4f01661a@googlemail.com> <20120925224614.GF26094@localhost> <20120929170509.63efef70@googlemail.com> <20120930201453.GC2180@localhost> <20120930213018.22fe16f3@googlemail.com> <20120930214214.GE2180@localhost> <20120930225340.126b1027@googlemail.com> <20120930235656.GA10800@localhost> <20121001081349.59ba2745@googlemail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Package Manager Specification discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121001081349.59ba2745@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 77303274-7da9-43a0-a8e6-d7f741283c29 X-Archives-Hash: 8f728e235dbaf18e253b9b0d8f964c1a 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