Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Andrew Cooks <andrew@××××××××××××.za>
To: Jason Rhinelander <jason@××××××××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ugly, nasty code in tetex.eclass
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:03:07
Message-Id: 41876890.2050402@expertron.co.za
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ugly, nasty code in tetex.eclass by Jason Rhinelander
1 Jason Rhinelander wrote:
2 > Georgi Georgiev wrote:
3 >
4 >> I prefer to post it here, because this is yet another reason why all
5 >> patches need to be removed from the portage tree.
6 >
7 >
8 > Excellent! We now have *proof* that patches *anywhere* in the portage
9 > tree are a bad thing and must be removed! Let's start a new thread
10 > about this called "patches.gentoo.org" and everyone can chime in! Oh,
11 > wait... Okay, let's call it "diffs.gentoo.org" so that it seems like
12 > something new.
13 >
14 Or even better, lets try to avoid the problem for a few months until
15 there are new people who didn't follow the previous flame war. That way
16 we can repeat most of the noise without having to fix anything.
17
18 Or we can even point to the previous flame war and save ourselves the
19 effort of thinking about the problem again.
20
21 Since I don't have anything constructive to add other than "I agree with
22 Georgi", I'll shut up now.
23
24 Andrew
25
26 --
27 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ugly, nasty code in tetex.eclass Athul Acharya <aacharya@×××××.com>