Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400
> > >
> > > Portage shows the repo it comes from because it is necessary for
> > > the package specification to be unique, i.e. two repositories can
> > > provide the same version of the same package.
> >
> > It does not have to show it for that function. Showing the repo is a
> > visual
> > thing for the user during merge output. Portage does not have to have ANY
> > output to do its job. Visual output is a user thing.
>
> Excuse me but what is your goal here? I stated the rationale for that
> particular change. Your disagreement won't change why it was done.

What is your goal? Your assumption is wrong, this change is clearly visual 
only...

Bug #510538: Include "::repository" in more messages.
https://github.com/gentoo/portage/commit/
3f110090e50207d4ae3f6031ce6b1beafc80de46

Not technical purely visual...
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=510538

> I know that some Gentoo developers find that very hard to comprehend
> but in most of the cases, the people directly involved in it happen to
> know the rationale. Rationale is *why X did Y*, not *why I think that X
> did Y, as long as it contradicts what X says*.

I know your making an insulting comment...

But it is funny that you are calling out something you just did. You said why 
you thought a change was made not the facts. Now you see the commit, the 
comment, and the bug that caused the change.

Still want to use your PMS argument for pure visual things on package merge?

Try again, this time respectfully and politely...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.