| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
|
| 5 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |
| 8 |
> > wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the |
| 10 |
> >> implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on |
| 11 |
> >> this now/soon? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Well we can't really compare it to SDEPEND (which is implemented |
| 14 |
> > in Paludis, for kdebuild-1 and exheres-0) without at least a |
| 15 |
> > half-arsed implementation. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of thing, |
| 18 |
> > I have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal. So I'd |
| 19 |
> > be extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've been able |
| 20 |
> > to have a play with an implementation. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> sorry? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I don't see an answers to any of my questions. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Really? I thought it was pretty clearly. Yes, you need an
|
| 27 |
implementation beforehand.
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- --
|
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlBhzH4ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHT2gCgtDFTdPkQ6X6jCkFzOIaqY+O7
|
| 35 |
uFQAnRnsznezzmSBha09MrCkRy1/3LZc
|
| 36 |
=ouSd
|
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives