List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:38 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@...> wrote:
> 1) Fact: Unfortunately, your method of argument, Ciaran, doesn't
> endear you to a number of devs. Some may have the impulse to reject
> an argument simply because it comes from you.
Perhaps Gentoo should be doing more to correct the attitudes of those
> 2) PMS is supposed to be about specifying things well enough that all
> three PMs can implement compatible ebuild/eclass/etc interpretation
> and execution.
Not exactly. It's about making sure ebuild developers know what they
can rely upon from a package mangler.
> 3) Given the above, it would be of /great/ benefit to your argument
> if either Zac or Brian (or preferably both) stepped up from time to
> time and said yes, this is really an issue.
They already have. For example:
> And if you /can/ get those statements, why are we still going round
> and round with all this?
That's a very good question. Why are people still blaming the PMS team
for the lack of magical appearance of flying unicorns rather than
making their case for the introduction of a horse?