| 1 |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:17:40 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > The issue is that you need to fix autoconf before you can claim that |
| 4 |
| > any non-trivial test case works correctly. |
| 5 |
| |
| 6 |
| And how are you going to verify autoconf works perfectly without |
| 7 |
| testing it? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Can't. Dead easy to verify that it will break without testing it, |
| 10 |
though. Just look at the source. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
| The point I'm making is that the only thing required of *portage*, is |
| 13 |
| the prefix var being used internally, and handed down to the ebuilds. |
| 14 |
| |
| 15 |
| Ironing out the ebuild cruft is left to those who want it. Again, |
| 16 |
| where is the hold up for *portage*? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's rather short-sighted... Portage is irrelevant without the |
| 19 |
ebuilds. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
| What's the problem? Why the 101 holes before they even can attempt |
| 22 |
| it? If you're after shooting the idea down (as I suspect), state so |
| 23 |
| rather then death by a thousand cuts. Saves us time, really. |
| 24 |
| |
| 25 |
| Hell, haubi's patch already lays the ground work for testing it. I'm |
| 26 |
| not seeing why you're being negative about people even working on it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Because a botched solution is worse than no solution at all. You've |
| 29 |
seen the mess we end up with when people start working with a |
| 30 |
half-arsed initial setup. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 34 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 35 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives