| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> From the other thread ("example conversion of gentoo-x86 current |
| 5 |
>> deps to unified dependencies"): |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> [Sorry, I've missed this one in the other thread, so replying here.] |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>>> 4) It is not exherbo's DEPENDENCIES. Meaning it is not label based. |
| 10 |
>>> Meaning you do not need to knee-jerk attack it because of some |
| 11 |
>>> notion it's ciaran based/related. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> What kind of reasoning is this? Does it mean that the syntax was |
| 14 |
> deliberately changed to make it different from exherbo's? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> We should accept (or reject) things based on their technical merits, |
| 17 |
> not because of ad-hominem or "not invented here" arguments. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Ulrich |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Brian was mocking how so many people reject anything Ciaran proposes |
| 23 |
out of hand. He actually discussed the reasoning why he doesn't |
| 24 |
actually like labels in another thread. |
Archives