1 |
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:45:16 +0100 |
2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> > As I've said every time you make that |
4 |
> > absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page |
5 |
> > explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from |
6 |
> > electrons upwards, in response to a simple question. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> Yes because we really need to discuss transistor logic for this. |
9 |
|
10 |
Right, in the same way we need to discuss package manager loading |
11 |
internals for this. |
12 |
|
13 |
> >> you keep making things much more personal than they need to be. |
14 |
> >> I was discussing how and when that metadata is generated. As |
15 |
> >> Harring pointed out, pkgcore does it at a _different_ point in |
16 |
> >> time. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Funny how that slipped by, isn't it? |
19 |
|
20 |
What? I already mentioned how there were other obscure internals |
21 |
factors related to the decision. There are all kinds of ways one could |
22 |
do it. As it happens, I don't like the Pkgcore way primarily because it |
23 |
directly encourages the kind of screwups that happened with the first |
24 |
Pkgcore EAPI 2 attempt. |
25 |
|
26 |
> (and no doubt your sekrit personality on the forums.) |
27 |
|
28 |
Unlike you, I don't post from multiple accounts or pretending to be |
29 |
several people. (As an aside: if you feel you must carry on calling me |
30 |
a terrorist baby-munching communist or whatever it is this week, please |
31 |
humour me and do it from the account with your real name on it.) |
32 |
|
33 |
> I mean that crap you came out with about subshell die over a year |
34 |
> ago, and the nonsense you spouted about trap on the dev m-l recently. |
35 |
|
36 |
You mean the results of having several people try every solution in |
37 |
depth, evaluate them against the way ebuilds are coded and come up |
38 |
with the one that works? |
39 |
|
40 |
> >> You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is |
41 |
> >> needed? |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions |
44 |
> > changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been |
45 |
> > covered. |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> IOW we need to consider the EAPI, which is what was being discussed |
48 |
> on the technical list. |
49 |
|
50 |
Yes, which is what my original reply (the one that got you so upset) |
51 |
said in the first place. |
52 |
|
53 |
> >> Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean |
54 |
> >> the .ebuild |
55 |
> > |
56 |
> > So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you |
57 |
> > mean? Kindly explain. |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> Work it out, genius. |
60 |
|
61 |
I'm sorry, I can't work that out on my own. Please elucidate. Help me |
62 |
to understand why you think PMS is wrong with its restrictions on phase |
63 |
functions. |
64 |
|
65 |
-- |
66 |
Ciaran McCreesh |