| 1 |
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:53:51 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:46:54 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > master is just a name, you may have the main development happen in |
| 7 |
> > another branch (say devel) and the stabler tree is kept on the |
| 8 |
> > master branch and you may want to track both as well. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Or even worse, you get two lines of development you want to track |
| 11 |
> > that stay in completely different vcs. And that is the case of a |
| 12 |
> > real package, not theory. In those cases having a template could |
| 13 |
> > help a bit, having -scm + useflag is exactly the same as having bare |
| 14 |
> > useflags and slots. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Yes, sometimes upstreams are insane. Then we can't deal with them. |
| 17 |
> We're aiming to handle the large majority of sensible cases here, not |
| 18 |
> the things that don't map onto version concepts in any way. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > >> Then if you continued to read you'll notice that |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > ...you got so incoherent I gave up trying to work out what you're |
| 23 |
> > > on about. You still haven't shown how to solve the simple example |
| 24 |
> > > I gave earlier in the thread. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Relying to offense because I just pointed out something you |
| 27 |
> > dislikes since you cannot find a argumentative way reply isn't |
| 28 |
> > exactly polite or mature. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> No. Really. Again. You've been steadily talking nonsense on this whole |
| 31 |
> issue. Please step back, start again and clearly and concisely explain |
| 32 |
> in coherent English how you solve the simple example I gave earlier in |
| 33 |
> the thread. I am far from the only person who hasn't managed to work |
| 34 |
> out your explanation of this simple case so far. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I'm sorry, Luca, but I can't do what I want to do with your proposal. |
| 37 |
With the -scm suffix I can. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Actually I thought this was settled. What exactly is the issue holding |
| 40 |
GLEP 54 back that we need more discussion and different proposals? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 45 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 46 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives