On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:45:16 +0100
Steve Long <slong@...> wrote:
> > As I've said every time you make that 
> > absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page
> > explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from
> > electrons upwards, in response to a simple question.
> >
> Yes because we really need to discuss transistor logic for this.

Right, in the same way we need to discuss package manager loading
internals for this.

> >> you keep making things much more personal than they need to be.
> >> I was discussing how and when that metadata is generated. As
> >> Harring pointed out, pkgcore does it at a _different_ point in
> >> time.
> 
> Funny how that slipped by, isn't it?

What? I already mentioned how there were other obscure internals
factors related to the decision. There are all kinds of ways one could
do it. As it happens, I don't like the Pkgcore way primarily because it
directly encourages the kind of screwups that happened with the first
Pkgcore EAPI 2 attempt.

> (and no doubt your sekrit personality on the forums.)

Unlike you, I don't post from multiple accounts or pretending to be
several people. (As an aside: if you feel you must carry on calling me
a terrorist baby-munching communist or whatever it is this week, please
humour me and do it from the account with your real name on it.)

> I mean that crap you came out with about subshell die over a year
> ago, and the nonsense you spouted about trap on the dev m-l recently.

You mean the results of having several people try every solution in
depth, evaluate them against the way ebuilds are coded and come up
with the one that works?

> >> You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is
> >> needed?
> > 
> > It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions
> > changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been
> > covered.
> >
> IOW we need to consider the EAPI, which is what was being discussed
> on the technical list.

Yes, which is what my original reply (the one that got you so upset)
said in the first place.

> >> Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean
> >> the .ebuild
> > 
> > So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you
> > mean? Kindly explain.
> >
> Work it out, genius.

I'm sorry, I can't work that out on my own. Please elucidate. Help me
to understand why you think PMS is wrong with its restrictions on phase
functions.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh