| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> At this point, I think it would be most helpful towards us reaching a |
| 4 |
> conclusion if you agreed to refrain from commenting further until |
| 5 |
> you've understood the problem at hand. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
In other words: After I disproved all your wrong arguments, |
| 8 |
you try repeatedly to ignore my technical points and instead |
| 9 |
prefer to attack me personally of not understanding what I am saying. |
| 10 |
Fortunately, this is a developer's mailing list which will |
| 11 |
not get fooled by your strategy. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> You see, the rest of us are using "broken" to mean "broken" in a |
| 14 |
> technical sense, based upon our understanding of how ebuilds, the VDB |
| 15 |
> and metadata work. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It seems by "the rest of use" you mean me: |
| 18 |
That's why I pointed out repeatedly *what* is broken |
| 19 |
and why (namely the concept of having orphaned packages, |
| 20 |
and I wlil not repeat the example). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> You seem to be using it to mean "does something you |
| 23 |
> superficially or ideologically don't like". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You seem to be using it this way: That's what you call |
| 26 |
dynamic deps broken but static not, although both face |
| 27 |
the same problems. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> This is a technical discussion |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Exactly. So instead of writing such pointless personal attacks, |
| 32 |
you should give technical arguments. |
Archives