From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ENKci-0002qN-6r for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:32:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j961NftS002487; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 01:23:41 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j961NebX005227 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 01:23:41 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ENKcG-0000Hw-CU for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:32:12 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:32:20 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID... Message-ID: <20051006013219.GN13519@nightcrawler> References: <20051005230012.GK10159@nightcrawler> <20051006001430.364854e2@snowdrop.home> <20051005232236.GE13519@nightcrawler> <20051006003835.59140f4b@snowdrop.home> <20051005234046.GG13519@nightcrawler> <20051006011353.4a2a84c2@snowdrop.home> <20051006010134.GL13519@nightcrawler> <20051006020732.1bbfa8c4@snowdrop.home> <20051006011740.GM13519@nightcrawler> <20051006022347.5c8e608b@snowdrop.home> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aIbcA3MSwnGacr4f" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051006022347.5c8e608b@snowdrop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 9cfa8b4c-3db4-43d0-80b9-a4d566973726 X-Archives-Hash: 818f1aaabeaf095a50643d4cef7ad80e --aIbcA3MSwnGacr4f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:23:47AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:17:40 -0500 Brian Harring > wrote: > | > The issue is that you need to fix autoconf before you can claim that > | > any non-trivial test case works correctly. > |=20 > | And how are you going to verify autoconf works perfectly without=20 > | testing it? >=20 > Can't. Dead easy to verify that it will break without testing it, > though. Just look at the source. Break is a bit heavy, considering autoconf's usage of /bin/sh is=20 pretty limited in terms of syntax. Looking at the source, it'll=20 revert to / for certain bins. =20 A forced autoreconf with a patched autoconf/autotools=20 is required, but again, doesn't do jack with out testing. > | The point I'm making is that the only thing required of *portage*, is= =20 > | the prefix var being used internally, and handed down to the ebuilds. > |=20 > | Ironing out the ebuild cruft is left to those who want it. Again,=20 > | where is the hold up for *portage*? >=20 > That's rather short-sighted... Portage is irrelevant without the > ebuilds. And ebuilds are irrelevant without portage. Point? My point experimentation can start for addressing the issues you keep=20 pointing at still stands. >=20 > | What's the problem? Why the 101 holes before they even can attempt=20 > | it? If you're after shooting the idea down (as I suspect), state so=20 > | rather then death by a thousand cuts. Saves us time, really. > |=20 > | Hell, haubi's patch already lays the ground work for testing it. I'm= =20 > | not seeing why you're being negative about people even working on it. >=20 > Because a botched solution is worse than no solution at all. You've > seen the mess we end up with when people start working with a > half-arsed initial setup. Well plan the sucker out then, as you advocated, or sit back and let=20 them jump in and start working it out. Perhaps they'll decide it's completely unworkable (I doubt it,=20 considering the fact fink's crappy handling of building has made it=20 this far), or perhaps they'll get it working and you won't have as=20 many holes to point at. Regardless, it's their time to spend working on it. Either chip in,=20 or offer _constructive_ advice, or plain step back and let them try to=20 get it working. Note the constructive. Stating it won't work and pulling a new reason=20 why isn't constructive, pointing out each issue as you see it so they=20 can address it (if it's an issue) is a bit more constructive. ~harring --aIbcA3MSwnGacr4f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRH6jvdBxRoA3VU0RAuoLAKCxmej2A4K7fZaRh8YzFUU2EBj7SACgpmyn TQI2d0wHRSn+7HtoqQDcpb0= =YfAN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aIbcA3MSwnGacr4f-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list