| 1 |
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:50 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:45:06 +0000 |
| 3 |
> Roy Marples <roy@×××××××.name> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Alright, so where would you stick EAPI such that all the |
| 5 |
> > > requirements that've previously been described are met? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I neither know, nor care. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I just feel very strongly that the current proposal is wrong, and no |
| 10 |
> > requirements that you or others may have can possibly outweigh that. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So you have no technical objections, no alternatives, no understanding |
| 13 |
> of why it's necessary and no actual reason to call it 'wrong'. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Hard to have technical objections to the contents of a string :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Actual reasons were stated in the first email I posted in this thread to |
| 18 |
which to replied. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I care not for alternatives, nor understanding as it's not my domain of |
| 21 |
expertise or knowledge. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But I can smell a blatant hack that is just wrong to the bone like a lot |
| 24 |
of other people here. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Just because you have a the only "solution" to a problem does not make |
| 27 |
it "right" by default. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Roy |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives