| 1 |
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
You've rattled me enough that I only responded to this part. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It wasn't a response to the original poster. It was only a reponse to your |
| 9 |
email. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It wasn't clear. That's why I asked "why?" |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> -- the present warning is misleading, as everyone has agreed -- |
| 16 |
> & your other response needs some explanation on your part. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Why do my other responses need more explanation? I didn't even use the |
| 19 |
standard contractions that portage devs use when talking to each other, but |
| 20 |
instead used terminology to ensure that any ebuild dev would understand. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Someone else has suggested that Portage can't handle a N/Y of this kind, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That suggestion is incorrect as my working tested patch shows. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> but in that case please offer some confirmation at least. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I already had via the patch. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Jason Stubbs |
Archives