1 |
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:55:41 +0100 |
2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> >> It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you |
4 |
> >> test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a |
5 |
> >> phase. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > The two issues are the same. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> You mean the three? They all boil down to whether a function is |
10 |
> declared, yes. Have a cookie: you'll need it. |
11 |
|
12 |
So if you know they're the same, why did you say that it's about |
13 |
something else? |
14 |
|
15 |
> > There are lots of constraints on what the bash side can do that are |
16 |
> > for package manager implementation sanity reasons. The whole |
17 |
> > constant cache requirement thing, for example, is purely a side |
18 |
> > effect of how package managers work. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> Yes and it's well understood and has been discussed on the list. This |
21 |
> hasn't, to my knowledge, yet everytime something which has /not/ been |
22 |
> discussed is brought up, you rear up spouting on about vague hints of |
23 |
> doom to do with portage, irrespective of how many Gentoo systems it's |
24 |
> built and maintains. You obfuscate and spam the list with 15 mails |
25 |
> instead of simply explaining in one go. |
26 |
|
27 |
Uhm. No. My original post explained it all in a level of detail |
28 |
suitable for the issue at hand. Unfortunately, you then had to jump in |
29 |
and expect me to explain twenty other at best vaguely related issues |
30 |
which weren't under discussion. As I've said every time you make that |
31 |
absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page |
32 |
explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from electrons |
33 |
upwards, in response to a simple question. |
34 |
|
35 |
> IIRC weren't you the guy who deliberately took a troll as your avatar |
36 |
> in order to flagrantly ban-evade and troll the forums a while back? |
37 |
|
38 |
Uh. No. |
39 |
|
40 |
> > It is of course highly obvious that there are |
41 |
> > several ways of achieving the desired result, and highly obvious |
42 |
> > that there are a whole bunch of factors affecting which one works |
43 |
> > best. |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> Yes, but it's not something we can discuss, I know, because I am |
46 |
> 'obviously' too stupid to understand. |
47 |
|
48 |
If you genuinely care about how Paludis deals with the bash side of |
49 |
things, do a little background reading and then post a mail to the |
50 |
Paludis mailing list asking about it. The answer you get will be long, |
51 |
obscure and of interest to maybe three people, and only because they |
52 |
have to know about it when changing things. |
53 |
|
54 |
> > As it happens, all three package managers picked different |
55 |
> > solutions, all based upon extremely obscure internals issues. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> I read that as "stuff I don't really understand." No doubt you'll |
58 |
> elucidate over the next 20 mails or so.. I'll get back to you then. |
59 |
|
60 |
I realise trying to extend the scope of what you expect me to explain |
61 |
to include life, the universe and everything so you can moan that at me |
62 |
that I didn't include a demonstration of why the sky is blue in my |
63 |
original email is your strategy here, but really... Do you genuinely |
64 |
care? |
65 |
|
66 |
> > Which brings me back |
67 |
> > to my original point -- mandating a particular behaviour to enable |
68 |
> > some horrible ebuild hackery that doesn't even do what people want |
69 |
> > would be a very silly decision. |
70 |
> > |
71 |
> You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is |
72 |
> needed? |
73 |
|
74 |
It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions |
75 |
changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been |
76 |
covered. |
77 |
|
78 |
> >> Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that |
79 |
> >> not providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during |
80 |
> >> the actual install, is not such a good way for the mangler to |
81 |
> >> ascertain ahead of time whether or not that phase will be needed, |
82 |
> >> *irrespective* of how any extant implementation does it. |
83 |
> > |
84 |
> > Your premise is faulty. Ebuilds may not call phase functions, and |
85 |
> > never do. |
86 |
> > |
87 |
> Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean |
88 |
> the .ebuild |
89 |
|
90 |
So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you |
91 |
mean? Kindly explain. |
92 |
|
93 |
> Is any of that true? Does it matter? What does any of it have to do |
94 |
> with software development? Would you like a full CV, passport and |
95 |
> biometric data from everyone who posts? Who are you to impose that |
96 |
> condition? |
97 |
|
98 |
No, I would like you to stop maintaining a "real work" persona and a |
99 |
"paludis bashing" persona. Beyond that I don't care. |
100 |
|
101 |
Incidentally, read up on luke-jr (google "gentoo-dev seems to be |
102 |
hacked") if you want to see what Gentoo's view on using aliases and |
103 |
contributions from non-existent people is. |
104 |
|
105 |
> You weaseled out of signing the copyright transfer and continue to |
106 |
> wave it in everyone's face at the slightest opportunity. Excuse me |
107 |
> for not being bowled-over. |
108 |
|
109 |
Uh. Huh. |
110 |
|
111 |
-- |
112 |
Ciaran McCreesh |