| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:25:44 -0800 |
| 2 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > EAPI *can't* be set in an eclass correctly anyway because EAPI is |
| 4 |
> > allowed to (and likely will in the future) change the behaviour of |
| 5 |
> > inherit. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> ...and this proves my point. Rather than simply stating this, you |
| 8 |
> decided to post $diety knows how many lines of completely worthless |
| 9 |
> information again and again. Had you simply said *exactly this* at |
| 10 |
> the beginning, the thread/discussion would have been over. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Er, I did. Read my first post to the thread. That is exactly what I |
| 13 |
said. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Then, once you've done that, read other people's questions, which expand |
| 16 |
upon the original topic and which can't be handled simply by shoving |
| 17 |
EAPI in each ebuild and doing nothing else. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> This is exactly what people mean when they say that they feel that |
| 20 |
> you are not participating in discussions fairly. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What. Please explain how my original post to this thread wasn't |
| 23 |
sufficient to answer the original question, and how other related but |
| 24 |
more complex questions that other people posted later on are answered |
| 25 |
merely by that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I think you should go back, read the whole thread ordered by date and |
| 28 |
then consider whether an apology for your behaviour is in order. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives