Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Justin <jlec@g.o>
Subject: Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
> Justin <jlec@g.o> wrote:
>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
>> others? Probably you better should.
> 
> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
> knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" is.
> 

Might be right, but that doesn't allow you to break your own rules.
Plus I still don't get the problem of using SLOTS in the way they are
used now.

And I can't find this out by simply googling. In contrast, an
explanation of multilib in context of linux distribution and more
specific gentoo can be found easily.
But that's nothing I wanted to discuss here.

Stop acting in this arrogant way you are doing right now. This doesn't
make sympathetic in any way and heavily overshadows the technically
skills you will have for sure.

>> An example:
>>
>> "...slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used
>> to,..."
>>
>> is completely useless without a description of what SLOTS are about
>> and how the should be used. And what is the wrong usage you can find;
>> examples are necessary here for understanding.
> 
> That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so
> there's no need to repeat it here.

Ever heard about references. They are good, if you don't like to repeat
what is written, but which are necessary context to understand what you
are writing. You should use them for the sake of understanding, if you
are to lazy to write it out again.

> 
>> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge
>> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going
>> wrong.
> 
> As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's
> about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until the
> root cause is solved properly.
> 

My clear vote is No. We shouldn't implement anything which allows bad
coding anywhere, just for the sake of having it "solved" now.

Attachment:
signature.asc (OpenPGP digital signature)
Replies:
Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Next by thread:
Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Previous by date:
Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Next by date:
Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots


Updated Jun 23, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.