| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before |
| 6 |
> > > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If |
| 7 |
> > > package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible |
| 8 |
> > > thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are |
| 11 |
> > complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers |
| 14 |
> think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims |
| 15 |
> to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0. Did it fully? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No, bugs existed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
See the failing here? Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is |
| 24 |
required when your own code hasn't met said standards. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You're also dodging the fact that apparently you've known about eapi1 |
| 27 |
incompatibilities and intentionally withheld that information for |
| 28 |
the apparent purpose of discrediting pkgcore. You've been stating for |
| 29 |
a long while eapi1 support was broke- for the default iuse support |
| 30 |
months back, and ongoing- I get the very strong vibe you've been |
| 31 |
sitting on bugs for a long while. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I've put up with lies from y'all for a long while- simplest gross |
| 34 |
example is the claims pkgcore devs were forking the format when |
| 35 |
in actuality paludis devs (you) were forking off exheres at the |
| 36 |
time of the accusation. I'm accustomed to that bullshit, and I |
| 37 |
stomach it because limited dealing with you benefits gentoo, at least |
| 38 |
as long as you wield the political hammer that is PMS. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
What's over the line however is that via your withholding of |
| 41 |
information, you intentionally allowing users to see breakage to try |
| 42 |
and discredit the competition. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
That's not acceptable in any form. Actual bug reports, for ebuild |
| 45 |
support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically |
| 46 |
within same day. I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it |
| 47 |
means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your |
| 48 |
insepid games). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two |
| 51 |
back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional |
| 52 |
breakage admittedly is not possible. However considering the |
| 53 |
behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume |
| 54 |
the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it |
| 57 |
is pretty fricking sad. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
~harring |
Archives