| 1 |
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Justin <jlec@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from |
| 5 |
>> others? Probably you better should. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between |
| 8 |
> knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" is. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Might be right, but that doesn't allow you to break your own rules. |
| 12 |
Plus I still don't get the problem of using SLOTS in the way they are |
| 13 |
used now. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
And I can't find this out by simply googling. In contrast, an |
| 16 |
explanation of multilib in context of linux distribution and more |
| 17 |
specific gentoo can be found easily. |
| 18 |
But that's nothing I wanted to discuss here. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Stop acting in this arrogant way you are doing right now. This doesn't |
| 21 |
make sympathetic in any way and heavily overshadows the technically |
| 22 |
skills you will have for sure. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>> An example: |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> "...slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used |
| 27 |
>> to,..." |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> is completely useless without a description of what SLOTS are about |
| 30 |
>> and how the should be used. And what is the wrong usage you can find; |
| 31 |
>> examples are necessary here for understanding. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so |
| 34 |
> there's no need to repeat it here. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Ever heard about references. They are good, if you don't like to repeat |
| 37 |
what is written, but which are necessary context to understand what you |
| 38 |
are writing. You should use them for the sake of understanding, if you |
| 39 |
are to lazy to write it out again. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
>> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge |
| 43 |
>> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going |
| 44 |
>> wrong. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's |
| 47 |
> about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until the |
| 48 |
> root cause is solved properly. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
My clear vote is No. We shouldn't implement anything which allows bad |
| 52 |
coding anywhere, just for the sake of having it "solved" now. |
Archives