Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:37:14
Message-Id: 200909200237.16176.patrick@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup by Ciaran McCreesh
> > > > In the same sense package.mask as a directory is officially > > > > supported (used by the KDE team, temporarily removed for legacy > > > > package managers). > > > > > > Patrick, if you're going to keep trolling, kindly do so elsewhere. > > > > Well, some facts - > > > > The KDE overlay used package.mask as a directory. Some users who had > > been migrated to paludis in the genkdesvn times complained. The KDE > > team decided to remove that nice feature to keep users happy, > > progress be damned. And most of the KDE team members wish to re-add > > that feature. > > > > That ain't trolling, that be facts. > > The KDE team are more than welcome to re-add it as an EAPI controlled > feature, either through EAPI 4 or through EAPI kdebuild-2 as they > prefer. > > There's a huge difference between doing something as a published > standard and doing something that violates a published standard.
Now you're being quite inconsistent. If you are in support of what the "old" KDE team / genkdesvn did (create their own standard in an overlay and experiment with it) then you must also be in support of the "new" kde team doing the same. So either kdebuild-1 was a bad thing (not approved by council, not even supported by any official package manager) or package.mask as a directory is a good thing (feature has been there since the Old Times, only used in an overlay, well documented, no compatibility issues) Also, kdebuild-1 was used _before_ it was voted on by council (which doesn't seem to bother you because it was in an overlay) and never became an official standard (published yes, but that's irrelevant). So by your own logic using it was A Bad Thing To Do. Or you only attacked funtoo (and their use of package.mask) for personal reasons?
> You had a patch rejected that the PMS team has no authority to accept, > and were told how to raise the issue with the appropriate authorities > to get the change you requested made. Rather than doing so, you decided > to suggest on your blog that the PMS team were to blame for rejecting > it.
I find this interpretation quite interesting, but I'm not that much into postmodern existentialism. You should do a subjective interpretation based on dadaism or the school of dancing goats. That being said I was merely pointing out that the statement in PMS ("bash version 3.0") has no base in reality anymore and has been de facto obsoleted. De jure the council has not voted against these violations, even when they were brought up quite a while ago (darkside claims 6-8 months ago). So independent of what you believe in or desire the statement in PMS is WRONG. As such it needs to be corrected. If that happens on the short path by editing it directly or through the long path of letting council decide to have it edited doesn't matter to me, as long as PMS and reality can agree on basic things. (And no, undoing all these modifications is not an option. It would positively cripple development for no reason, which might excite you, but it's not something the gentoo dev community will tolerate.)
> > I would say that documenting the current state of things is quite > > relevant to the issue at hand. If you are bothered by facts please > > don't try to engage in discussions. > > Then why don't you follow the process we told you about for getting it > fixed?
Well, it's on the council's agenda now. I would say that it's following process quite well. How about you don't ask questions you already know the answer to?
> > And here something completely unrelated: > > <darkside_> bonsaikitten: you know the best part in response to your > > blog post is? > > <darkside_> bonsaikitten: python.eclass uses "+=" in it, so portage > > can't be installed with bash-3.0 ;) > > > > I couldn't have said it better. Stupid reality not obeying! > > Again, why don't you do what we suggested to get the problem fixed? Why > do you instead continue to whine about us not changing something we're > not allowed to change?
Ah, pluralis majestatis. Doesn't get you executed anymore these days. So what else, apart from discussing it on this mailinglist and putting it on the council agenda should I have done? Collected my thoughts and made them into a blog post? Oh wait. Now I don't want to be a spoilsport, but you've consistently tried to derail this discussion, brought in irrelevant things and tried to confuse matters by adding in random stuff until everyone is confused. That's no way to discuss technical matters. If you can't stay on topic and avoid personal attacks we'll have to reconsider how to handle this situation. Le sigh. Patrick

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>