Re: [gentoo-catalyst] catalyst enhancement

[Thilo Bangert]

> Not unless we can come up with some reason why we would need to add the
> code complexity to catalyst.  Essentially, there would have to be a few
> use cases that would absolutely prohibit using absolute paths,
> otherwise I don't see a reason for changing it.  This has been brought
> up before and always shot down simply because nobody could ever give me
> a reason why an absolute path wouldn't work for them and only a
> relative would. If you can show that what you want to do cannot be
> accomplished with the current code and absolute paths, then it would be
> accepted.  Remember that simply making something easier for you isn't a
> valid reason for hacking up catalyst internals that much.

i'd ask the other way around: why only allow absolute paths?
this limitation strikes me as counter intuitive.

when i started using catalyst, i was expecting it to work this way and 
wondered why it didnt. so far, i find your arguments against it a bit 
weak.... i would love to have that extra flexibility.
(the guy even said he wanted to do the coding!)

heck, show the (hackish) patch, and lets examine "the bloat"...
perhaps this needs to be part of the 2.1 branch!
:)

have fun
kind regards
Thilo