| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:51:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:39:43 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > The historical mess is not relevant anymore. Is there a single |
| 7 |
> > > > real case when IUSE does not contain *at least* the ebuild-set |
| 8 |
> > > > IUSE? |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > The historical mess applies to things under EAPI control. If you |
| 11 |
> > > want stronger guarantees, you know how to propose things for a |
| 12 |
> > > future EAPI. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > You didn't answer my question. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Well no. The point of having a spec for all of this is that we don't |
| 17 |
> have to spend a long time carefully checking things to answer this |
| 18 |
> kind of question every single time a topic is discussed (and this |
| 19 |
> topic has come up quite a few times). You can just look back and see |
| 20 |
> the justification for the spec wording that was given. Then, if you |
| 21 |
> want a change, you can get it in a future EAPI, without us having to |
| 22 |
> worry about working out exactly what the impact will be. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes, it did. And you are consistently wasting your and ours time |
| 25 |
complaining that we're doing illegal stuff without trying to bring even |
| 26 |
a single solution to it. Do you even care? Or are you just complaining |
| 27 |
because you don't have anything useful to do? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution which |
| 30 |
will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' and 'we can |
| 31 |
fix it in an awful way in next 10 years'. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Or to put it another way, the point of having a spec is not to give |
| 34 |
> you something to argue about every time it is brought up. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
You know, good specs come with a thing called 'rationale' for various |
| 37 |
points. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Best regards, |
| 41 |
Michał Górny |
Archives