| 1 |
On Thursday 06 July 2006 23:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> No, Diego. The argument is that you're coming up with a horrible and |
| 3 |
> unnecessary hack where there are far cleaner alternatives, and that |
| 4 |
> you're blindly sticking to it and trying to throw off any objections by |
| 5 |
> devious means because you don't want to scrap said hack after all the |
| 6 |
> misguided effort you've spent on it. However, since you seem to be |
| 7 |
> incapable of admitting the gaping flaws in your own work, I'm asking for |
| 8 |
> someone else to point this out to you in a formal manner rather than |
| 9 |
> watch this thread go on for even longer. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Wait, isn't that what _you_ usually do? Like climbing up on mirrors when you |
| 12 |
misunderstood something and blamed someone for an error that was never made, |
| 13 |
trying to find another glitch in the procedure to back it up? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Yeah that really sounds like you more than me. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm entirely ready to scrap what I have here if I find _valid reasons to_. |
| 18 |
All you seem to be able to say is that you don't like this, you point to a |
| 19 |
control that users have not much for a valid reason than for the simple fact |
| 20 |
that the useflag was a good way to allow user to choose what it had without |
| 21 |
forcing it to use support that was not supported on their system. A solution |
| 22 |
that worked, but that is not the only one, and that I wouldn't consider a |
| 23 |
great choice that users really need to be able to use Gentoo. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The most interesting point shown up until now is the one about non-gcc |
| 26 |
compatibility, that I actually thought about for a while, but I thought -dM |
| 27 |
was unix standard option, Harald got me there, and I'll be checking for |
| 28 |
something in ICC. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
| 32 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives