On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:03:18AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 17:53:36 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
> wrote:
> | On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:29:56PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:16:06 -0500 Kito <kito@g.o> wrote:
> | > | > b) assume that you'll not have to modify ebuilds
> | > | 
> | > | I don't think anyone(devs) has made this naive assumption have
> | > | they?
> | > 
> | > pvdabeel has for pathspec.
> | > 
> | > | > and c)
> | > | > demand that as soon as it's available, it works for all ebuilds.
> | > | 
> | > | I don't think anyone(devs) has made this naive demand have they?
> | > 
> | > pvdabeel has for pathspec.
> | 
> | You're not talking to pvdabeel right now, so kindly be quiet about 
> | him.
> 
> Oh come off it. You claim that no dev has made this naive demand when
> at least one quite clearly has on several occasions. All three of my
> points are entirely relevant to the discussion, since every other time
> this has come up at least one said mistakes has been made.

Again, do you see anyone here claiming all are simple?  It's the same 
points made last time around, those who want it do the work, it's 
going to be bumpy and will require work, but those who want it are the 
ones who have to do it.

Bluntly, stick to the discussion of prefix, or go elsewhere.  Bash 
pvdabeel if you like but sure as hell not on this list since no one 
cares, further since it's not relevant to the _current_ discussion, 
where people are actually attempting to pull this off.

If as you posit, it's not been discussed/planned properly, I suggest 
you stick to contributing to the discussion and planning of it.  The 
alternative is that people get fed up with the the ancillary bullshit, 
and they implement it themselves (which I'm sure you would dislike).
~harring