Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 19:09:33
Message-Id: 20141001210921.000073a3@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3 by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:58:18 +0100
2 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:37:20 +0200
5 > Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote:
6 > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:05:19 +0000 (UTC)
7 > > "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
8 > > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
9 > > > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100
10 > > > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
11 > > > >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
12 > > > >> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
13 > > > >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
14 > > > >>
15 > > > >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
16 > > >
17 > > > It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't
18 > > > trolling, he was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here
19 > > > understood his point. There were no attacks and no "foul
20 > > > language", so can we move forward?
21 > >
22 > > Constructiveness does not rely on just making points, as replacing
23 > > nano with Vim is out of the context of adding bc back to stage3.
24 > > Editors are a world apart from a build tool, even more so from being
25 > > POSIX. In order to move forward beyond this point, that needs to be
26 > > recognized.
27
28 Ah, quotes are getting cut out, lovely; it focuses on what is crucial.