1 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:26:38 +0200 |
2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On Sunday 20 September 2009 01:03:41 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:48:51 +0200 |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > > In the same sense package.mask as a directory is officially |
8 |
> > > supported (used by the KDE team, temporarily removed for legacy |
9 |
> > > package managers). |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Patrick, if you're going to keep trolling, kindly do so elsewhere. |
12 |
> Well, some facts - |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The KDE overlay used package.mask as a directory. Some users who had |
15 |
> been migrated to paludis in the genkdesvn times complained. The KDE |
16 |
> team decided to remove that nice feature to keep users happy, |
17 |
> progress be damned. And most of the KDE team members wish to re-add |
18 |
> that feature. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> That ain't trolling, that be facts. |
21 |
|
22 |
The KDE team are more than welcome to re-add it as an EAPI controlled |
23 |
feature, either through EAPI 4 or through EAPI kdebuild-2 as they |
24 |
prefer. |
25 |
|
26 |
There's a huge difference between doing something as a published |
27 |
standard and doing something that violates a published standard. |
28 |
|
29 |
> > Your response [1] to the rejection of your bash version patch |
30 |
> I fail to see what my blog has to do with discussing PMS and this |
31 |
> mailinglist. Please stop confusing things by trying to throw in |
32 |
> random unrelated things until people walk away in frustration and you |
33 |
> win by being the bigger idiot. |
34 |
|
35 |
You had a patch rejected that the PMS team has no authority to accept, |
36 |
and were told how to raise the issue with the appropriate authorities |
37 |
to get the change you requested made. Rather than doing so, you decided |
38 |
to suggest on your blog that the PMS team were to blame for rejecting |
39 |
it. |
40 |
|
41 |
> > shows |
42 |
> > that you're not interested in getting your concerns fixed, and are |
43 |
> > instead just trying to stir up trouble. |
44 |
> I would say that documenting the current state of things is quite |
45 |
> relevant to the issue at hand. If you are bothered by facts please |
46 |
> don't try to engage in discussions. |
47 |
|
48 |
Then why don't you follow the process we told you about for getting it |
49 |
fixed? |
50 |
|
51 |
> And here something completely unrelated: |
52 |
> <darkside_> bonsaikitten: you know the best part in response to your |
53 |
> blog post is? |
54 |
> <darkside_> bonsaikitten: python.eclass uses "+=" in it, so portage |
55 |
> can't be installed with bash-3.0 ;) |
56 |
> |
57 |
> I couldn't have said it better. Stupid reality not obeying! |
58 |
|
59 |
Again, why don't you do what we suggested to get the problem fixed? Why |
60 |
do you instead continue to whine about us not changing something we're |
61 |
not allowed to change? |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Ciaran McCreesh |