| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
>> All good points. I cannot believe there exists no other way to solve |
| 3 |
>> this technical issue other than resorting to such a non-Unix-like |
| 4 |
>> idea. Obviously all of the software packages cited above endeavor to |
| 5 |
>> avoid such nastiness. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Then why don't you come up with a viable solution? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I already have - look back at my posts; very similar to Rich0's idea. |
| 10 |
And I tire of the argument that if one doesn't have a perfect solution |
| 11 |
now, we should adopt a half-brained one. The point of this is to spur |
| 12 |
discussion to come up with a better solution. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> For the same reason they're willing to accept the package name and |
| 15 |
> version in the filename. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The fact that you think this is the same thing as having the EAPI in the |
| 18 |
filename is odd. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> "If you paint the bikeshed, I shall throw my toys out of the pram and |
| 21 |
> run off crying.". |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Why don't you propose a viable alternative instead of making threats? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Not a threat. And this will be my last post on the topic. I will not |
| 26 |
take your bate and continue to argue, creating more noise on this list - |
| 27 |
I've expressed how I feel. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-Joe |
Archives