1 |
*Sigh* Guess it's that time of year again.. |
2 |
|
3 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
5 |
>> > The whole point of PMS is that it provides a way to avoid relying |
6 |
>> > upon implementation specific things. There are currently no |
7 |
>> > packages that rely upon calling phase functions in the wrong place |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you |
10 |
>> test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a |
11 |
>> phase. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The two issues are the same. |
14 |
> |
15 |
You mean the three? They all boil down to whether a function is declared, |
16 |
yes. Have a cookie: you'll need it. |
17 |
|
18 |
>> > and there are |
19 |
>> > good reasons a package manager might want to avoid implementing |
20 |
>> > things in a way such that doing so is legal, so we don't allow it. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Sure let's keep constraining what the bash side of things can do, as |
23 |
>> that's nothing to do with the package manager implementation. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> There are lots of constraints on what the bash side can do that are |
26 |
> for package manager implementation sanity reasons. The whole |
27 |
> constant cache requirement thing, for example, is purely a side effect |
28 |
> of how package managers work. |
29 |
> |
30 |
Yes and it's well understood and has been discussed on the list. This |
31 |
hasn't, to my knowledge, yet everytime something which has /not/ been |
32 |
discussed is brought up, you rear up spouting on about vague hints of doom |
33 |
to do with portage, irrespective of how many Gentoo systems it's built and |
34 |
maintains. You obfuscate and spam the list with 15 mails instead of simply |
35 |
explaining in one go. Finally when someone pleads for sanity, you might |
36 |
turn around and explain wtf you're on about, and half the time it's |
37 |
rubbish; only everyone who can argue the point has got too tired of the |
38 |
thread, already has you in a killfile, or already gave up on the list or |
39 |
Gentoo because of you, and the shitstorm you generate. |
40 |
|
41 |
>> > Also, I don't think it has to be done at that point. I think it's |
42 |
>> > convenient to do it at that point, and when combined with several |
43 |
>> > other reasons doing it that way is the best option. |
44 |
>> > |
45 |
>> Yes, a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in pure bullsh^W |
46 |
>> obfuscation is always such fun. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> We were discussing your trollish claim that I thought that things had to |
49 |
> be done a particular way. |
50 |
|
51 |
No you were; you keep making things much more personal than they need to be. |
52 |
I was discussing how and when that metadata is generated. As Harring |
53 |
pointed out, pkgcore does it at a _different_ point in time. |
54 |
|
55 |
IIRC weren't you the guy who deliberately took a troll as your avatar in |
56 |
order to flagrantly ban-evade and troll the forums a while back? Since |
57 |
we're discussing personality; at face sight it seems hypocritical, but then |
58 |
you always have been quick to call others on behaviour you enjoy using, |
59 |
even when it's not actually happening. Guess you must be a l337 uber-troll |
60 |
or sth.. that's true trolling, to play the rules against everyone and cause |
61 |
as much confusion as possible. Much better than simply being a dicq and |
62 |
getting kicked out. Oh, wait.. |
63 |
|
64 |
> It is of course highly obvious that there are |
65 |
> several ways of achieving the desired result, and highly obvious that |
66 |
> there are a whole bunch of factors affecting which one works best. |
67 |
> |
68 |
Yes, but it's not something we can discuss, I know, because I am 'obviously' |
69 |
too stupid to understand. |
70 |
|
71 |
> As it happens, all three package managers picked different solutions, |
72 |
> all based upon extremely obscure internals issues. |
73 |
|
74 |
I read that as "stuff I don't really understand." No doubt you'll elucidate |
75 |
over the next 20 mails or so.. I'll get back to you then. |
76 |
|
77 |
> Which brings me back |
78 |
> to my original point -- mandating a particular behaviour to enable some |
79 |
> horrible ebuild hackery that doesn't even do what people want would be |
80 |
> a very silly decision. |
81 |
> |
82 |
You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is needed? |
83 |
|
84 |
>> > Strange how you repeatedly seem to pop up in favour of doing |
85 |
>> > whatever you think will cause most inconvenience to Paludis, |
86 |
>> > though... |
87 |
>> > |
88 |
>> Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that not |
89 |
>> providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during the actual |
90 |
>> install, is not such a good way for the mangler to ascertain ahead of |
91 |
>> time whether or not that phase will be needed, *irrespective* of how |
92 |
>> any extant implementation does it. |
93 |
> |
94 |
> Your premise is faulty. Ebuilds may not call phase functions, and |
95 |
> never do. |
96 |
> |
97 |
Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean the .ebuild |
98 |
|
99 |
>> I actually hesitated to get into that discussion with you. I did so |
100 |
>> as I wanted to query the design decision. You know, a technical |
101 |
>> _discussion_.. Thanks for reminding me again how incapable of that |
102 |
>> you are, unless you think there is some political capital to be |
103 |
>> gained. |
104 |
> |
105 |
> If you want a technical discussion, post using your other account with |
106 |
> your real name on it, not your sockpuppet. It's a bit hard to take you |
107 |
> seriously when you maintain two personas, one for real development and |
108 |
> an alterego for Pkgcore fanboyism / Paludis bashing. |
109 |
> |
110 |
Hmm how can I illustrate this wider point to you? |
111 |
|
112 |
Ciaran: it's clear everytime the new academic year starts, your post count |
113 |
ramps right up and pisses everyone off. I do hope that this year, what with |
114 |
your leaving University and having to be taken under your Dad's wing due to |
115 |
your mental illness, you don't go overboard and take out even more of your |
116 |
frustration on the rest of us. |
117 |
|
118 |
Is any of that true? Does it matter? What does any of it have to do with |
119 |
software development? Would you like a full CV, passport and biometric data |
120 |
from everyone who posts? Who are you to impose that condition? |
121 |
|
122 |
You weaseled out of signing the copyright transfer and continue to wave it |
123 |
in everyone's face at the slightest opportunity. Excuse me for not being |
124 |
bowled-over. |
125 |
|
126 |
BTW: stop telling me what to do: I'm mighty bored of it; your pronouncements |
127 |
only sound dramatic in your own head: no-one else really cares that much. |
128 |
*You* certainly don't get to impose /any/ conditions on me; you can only |
129 |
_ask_ the moderators that I be held to a certain standard of behaviour, |
130 |
taking into account the cultural norms, and the context. |
131 |
|
132 |
I look forward to the userrel bug. Mind if I get on with software now? |
133 |
|
134 |
|
135 |
|
136 |
|
137 |
Oh well, tough. |
138 |
|
139 |
The bit that really gets me is you think I'm a pkgcore fanboi; portage all |
140 |
the way, twat. |
141 |
|
142 |
Steven James Long: nobody's puppet, least of all /that/ troll's. |