| 1 |
On 04/30/13 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 +0000 (UTC) |
| 3 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully |
| 5 |
>> look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and |
| 6 |
>> (initially) implement it that way, in ordered to root out and get the |
| 7 |
>> bugs in the spec fixed. That said... |
| 8 |
> I highly doubt the person implementing the code for Paludis was doing |
| 9 |
> it in a contrarian way. As far as I can see, he simply implemented what |
| 10 |
> the spec says. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
Nice to know. For how the discussion has gone before the opposite seemed |
| 13 |
true. |
| 14 |
Now, is it possible to alter the behaviour of paludis to act, still |
| 15 |
following the specs, in a way compatible with portage and which seem |
| 16 |
more logical to the majority of people writing this thread? |
| 17 |
Or at least discuss the possibility for paludis to change behaviour? |
| 18 |
It seem there would be some gain and nearly no loss, and make everyone |
| 19 |
happy (or at least try to) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Best regards, |
| 22 |
Francesco |
Archives