Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o, gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:01:55
Message-Id: 20121001090132.GB14301@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting".
3 >
4 > You're still failing to understand the point of labels parsing rules,
5 > though: the point is to make uses like the above well defined and
6 > consistent.
8 I understand them just fine; you're just either very fucking daft,
9 which I have a hard time believing, or lieing through your teeth
10 (which fits a decade of behaviour including multiple suspensions for
11 exactly that behaviour).
13 Implicit labels context is build+run. Meaning the following
14 > x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting".
16 is actually
18 build+run x? ( build: a run: b )
20 Which isn't a nested conflict- subset, not conflict.
22 You argue labels are required so people can do nested conflicts;
23 meaning the following extreme example:
25 run x? ( build: a test: b )
27 And as I nicely pointed out, /not a single fucking exheres/ does that.
28 you've yet to pull out an example contradicting that analysis in
29 addition.
32 So... with that in mind- I'm doing two things; 1) can't force you
33 back under a bridge, instead I'll do the killfile equivalent for a few
34 weeks, 2) my original proposal if you kept being a tool seems
35 appropriate:
37 """
38 As said, you come up w/ real world examples, I'll include them; else
39 persist and I'll just fold the academic wankery description of labels
40 into the glep if you'd truly like me to (or you piss me off enough I
41 do so to be a dick).
42 """
44 What I truly love about that solution there is that it's both
45 accurate, and if I play my cards right, I may be able to get a glep
46 passed calling your proposal academic wankery; minimally, it'll be fun
47 from my standpoint to try, so at least something came out of the last
48 few emails from you.
50 hugs and kisses-
51 ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] GLEP: gentoo sync based unified deps proposal Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>