| 1 |
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:31:11 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Uh. No. As per the Council's request, we turned off kdebuild-1 for |
| 4 |
> > the approved generated versions of the spec, and we made it |
| 5 |
> > possible to show kdebuild-1-specific things in a different colour. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> i'm talking about when this crap was added originally, not any recent |
| 8 |
> conversations |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That was when it was added. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > So you're telling users who did what the Gentoo KDE project told |
| 13 |
> > them to do that you don't care about them enough to handle the |
| 14 |
> > removal in a carefully controlled manner? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> no one here said you had to change your PM. i could care less about |
| 17 |
> your PM. feel free to keep that crap in your PM forever ... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Keeping it around without a specification is a bad idea. And no, the |
| 20 |
plan is not to keep it anywhere forever. The plan is to keep it around |
| 21 |
until we can ensure that users aren't going to be affected by the |
| 22 |
removal. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> it is after all your own fault. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
For helping the Gentoo KDE team out? I'll bear that in mind next time |
| 27 |
Gentoo developers want help with something. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> it's actually kind of sad how you can sit there and block any PMS |
| 30 |
> additions that have been used in the tree for years because you didnt |
| 31 |
> feel like implementing it in your PM |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Uh. Riiiiight. I'm just drowning in bug reports from users who're using |
| 34 |
ebuilds that break with Paludis because we haven't implemented things |
| 35 |
that've been used in the tree for years. Perhaps you'd care to back up |
| 36 |
your mud-slinging with some examples. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> yet crap that was explicitly never official or in used in the tree |
| 39 |
> you feel you have a right to keep in the PMS. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It was added at the request of the Gentoo KDE team. It wasn't added |
| 42 |
because I wanted it; it was added because Gentoo developers asked for |
| 43 |
it. I realise you like to pretend that the people who asked for it |
| 44 |
never existed, but the fact is they did, and it would be irresponsible |
| 45 |
of Gentoo to make users suffer because of internal politicking. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> it doesnt belong there, it never has, so delete it/branch it already. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
You still haven't explained why it's better to delete it now than to do |
| 50 |
a controlled removal that won't affect users. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives