| 1 |
oops, didn't reply to the list. re-sending |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 19:19 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700 |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> So, I think you just don't like it and are inventing disadvantages |
| 7 |
> without even caring enough to consider them before writing. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Oh, I considered it for the past 4 hours before responding. Got nothing |
| 11 |
in favour of it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The current atom format and syntax in CONSISTENT throughout the configs, |
| 14 |
and PM code. This proposal would split that in two, configs, ebuilds |
| 15 |
one format, everything else the old. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
quote " |
| 18 |
Mine is easily incorporated into the PM; it is just a change |
| 19 |
in a single place splitting and parsing the tokens. |
| 20 |
" |
| 21 |
That is unless you also change all the code to the new format and a new |
| 22 |
data type. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I have written *DEPEND processing code (porthole's grahical Dependencies |
| 25 |
view) and worked on code in portage, pkgcore, gentoolkit, gpytage,... |
| 26 |
all working with the current atom syntax. This proposed change would |
| 27 |
require all those tools and more to be refactored too! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So, to throw your words back at you: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
This proposal was submitted ... "without even caring enough to consider |
| 32 |
them before writing." |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
enough said. |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
Archives