1 |
> > > > In the same sense package.mask as a directory is officially |
2 |
> > > > supported (used by the KDE team, temporarily removed for legacy |
3 |
> > > > package managers). |
4 |
> > > |
5 |
> > > Patrick, if you're going to keep trolling, kindly do so elsewhere. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Well, some facts - |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > The KDE overlay used package.mask as a directory. Some users who had |
10 |
> > been migrated to paludis in the genkdesvn times complained. The KDE |
11 |
> > team decided to remove that nice feature to keep users happy, |
12 |
> > progress be damned. And most of the KDE team members wish to re-add |
13 |
> > that feature. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > That ain't trolling, that be facts. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The KDE team are more than welcome to re-add it as an EAPI controlled |
18 |
> feature, either through EAPI 4 or through EAPI kdebuild-2 as they |
19 |
> prefer. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> There's a huge difference between doing something as a published |
22 |
> standard and doing something that violates a published standard. |
23 |
|
24 |
Now you're being quite inconsistent. If you are in support of what the "old" |
25 |
KDE team / genkdesvn did (create their own standard in an overlay and |
26 |
experiment with it) then you must also be in support of the "new" kde team |
27 |
doing the same. |
28 |
|
29 |
So either kdebuild-1 was a bad thing (not approved by council, not even |
30 |
supported by any official package manager) or package.mask as a directory is a |
31 |
good thing (feature has been there since the Old Times, only used in an |
32 |
overlay, well documented, no compatibility issues) |
33 |
|
34 |
Also, kdebuild-1 was used _before_ it was voted on by council (which doesn't |
35 |
seem to bother you because it was in an overlay) and never became an official |
36 |
standard (published yes, but that's irrelevant). So by your own logic using it |
37 |
was A Bad Thing To Do. Or you only attacked funtoo (and their use of |
38 |
package.mask) for personal reasons? |
39 |
|
40 |
> You had a patch rejected that the PMS team has no authority to accept, |
41 |
> and were told how to raise the issue with the appropriate authorities |
42 |
> to get the change you requested made. Rather than doing so, you decided |
43 |
> to suggest on your blog that the PMS team were to blame for rejecting |
44 |
> it. |
45 |
I find this interpretation quite interesting, but I'm not that much into |
46 |
postmodern existentialism. You should do a subjective interpretation based on |
47 |
dadaism or the school of dancing goats. |
48 |
|
49 |
That being said I was merely pointing out that the statement in PMS ("bash |
50 |
version 3.0") has no base in reality anymore and has been de facto obsoleted. |
51 |
De jure the council has not voted against these violations, even when they |
52 |
were brought up quite a while ago (darkside claims 6-8 months ago). |
53 |
|
54 |
So independent of what you believe in or desire the statement in PMS is WRONG. |
55 |
As such it needs to be corrected. |
56 |
If that happens on the short path by editing it directly or through the long |
57 |
path of letting council decide to have it edited doesn't matter to me, as long |
58 |
as PMS and reality can agree on basic things. |
59 |
|
60 |
(And no, undoing all these modifications is not an option. It would positively |
61 |
cripple development for no reason, which might excite you, but it's not |
62 |
something the gentoo dev community will tolerate.) |
63 |
|
64 |
> > I would say that documenting the current state of things is quite |
65 |
> > relevant to the issue at hand. If you are bothered by facts please |
66 |
> > don't try to engage in discussions. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Then why don't you follow the process we told you about for getting it |
69 |
> fixed? |
70 |
|
71 |
Well, it's on the council's agenda now. I would say that it's following |
72 |
process quite well. How about you don't ask questions you already know the |
73 |
answer to? |
74 |
|
75 |
> > And here something completely unrelated: |
76 |
> > <darkside_> bonsaikitten: you know the best part in response to your |
77 |
> > blog post is? |
78 |
> > <darkside_> bonsaikitten: python.eclass uses "+=" in it, so portage |
79 |
> > can't be installed with bash-3.0 ;) |
80 |
> > |
81 |
> > I couldn't have said it better. Stupid reality not obeying! |
82 |
> |
83 |
> Again, why don't you do what we suggested to get the problem fixed? Why |
84 |
> do you instead continue to whine about us not changing something we're |
85 |
> not allowed to change? |
86 |
Ah, pluralis majestatis. Doesn't get you executed anymore these days. |
87 |
So what else, apart from discussing it on this mailinglist and putting it on |
88 |
the council agenda should I have done? Collected my thoughts and made them |
89 |
into a blog post? Oh wait. |
90 |
|
91 |
Now I don't want to be a spoilsport, but you've consistently tried to derail |
92 |
this discussion, brought in irrelevant things and tried to confuse matters by |
93 |
adding in random stuff until everyone is confused. That's no way to discuss |
94 |
technical matters. If you can't stay on topic and avoid personal attacks we'll |
95 |
have to reconsider how to handle this situation. Le sigh. |
96 |
|
97 |
Patrick |