Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:57:01
Message-Id: gcp85e$v9$
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:55:41 +0100 > Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: >> >> It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you >> >> test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a >> >> phase. >> > >> > The two issues are the same. >> > >> You mean the three? They all boil down to whether a function is >> declared, yes. Have a cookie: you'll need it. > > So if you know they're the same, why did you say that it's about > something else? >
*cough* user perception vs reality; in your case there's at least a third level going on ofc.
>> > There are lots of constraints on what the bash side can do that are >> > for package manager implementation sanity reasons. The whole >> > constant cache requirement thing, for example, is purely a side >> > effect of how package managers work. >> > >> Yes and it's well understood and has been discussed on the list. This >> hasn't, to my knowledge, yet everytime something which has /not/ been >> discussed is brought up, you rear up spouting on about vague hints of >> doom to do with portage, irrespective of how many Gentoo systems it's >> built and maintains. You obfuscate and spam the list with 15 mails >> instead of simply explaining in one go. > > Uhm. No. My original post explained it all in a level of detail > suitable for the issue at hand.
`Level of detail for issue at hand' is similar to a user thinking it's two or three issues when it's one.
> Unfortunately, you then had to jump in > and expect me to explain twenty other at best vaguely related issues > which weren't under discussion.
Nope; just if you don't want to discuss, kindly stay away from any of my posts in future. Just ignore me and perhaps someone more able to carry on a discussion will respond instead (and yes, that does preclude your fanbois.)
> As I've said every time you make that > absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page > explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from electrons > upwards, in response to a simple question. >
Yes because we really need to discuss transistor logic for this. (And yes, I really do know more about it than you.)
>> you keep making things much more personal than they need to be. >> I was discussing how and when that metadata is generated. As Harring >> pointed out, pkgcore does it at a _different_ point in time.
Funny how that slipped by, isn't it?
>> IIRC weren't you the guy who deliberately took a troll as your avatar >> in order to flagrantly ban-evade and troll the forums a while back? > > Uh. No. >
Yes, dear..
>> > It is of course highly obvious that there are >> > several ways of achieving the desired result, and highly obvious >> > that there are a whole bunch of factors affecting which one works >> > best. >> > >> Yes, but it's not something we can discuss, I know, because I am >> 'obviously' too stupid to understand. > > If you genuinely care about how Paludis deals with the bash side of > things,
No I don't you moron; I want to discuss package managers and the technicalities of using them with people who work with portage, pkgcore and Gentoo. You just keep getting in the way, acting somehow as if you're elucidating, when all you're doing is quite pathetic attention-seeking.
> do a little background reading and then post a mail to the > Paludis mailing list asking about it.
No thanks, my first and only real-time conversation with you two years ago convinced me that all the Gentoo people who couldn't stand to even talk about you had good reason. Up until that point, based on the mailing-list, I assumed that when you didn't get an answer it was because you were right. Not that everyone was just sick to death of you after 3 or 4 years. Their embarrasment wasn't technical iow, it was purely about your personality, which is poisoned, perhaps by your Aspergers or w/e you're calling it this year. I doubt it though: I think you're just a nasty piece of work who hides his craven cowardice behind his technical ability, and uses that to get a kick out of beating up on newbs. We see them all the time in #bash, ##c and so on; put bluntly you and your cohorts are the reason I never got involved with KDE on Gentoo, despite having used it for over a decade.
>> > As it happens, all three package managers picked different >> > solutions, all based upon extremely obscure internals issues. >> >> I read that as "stuff I don't really understand." No doubt you'll >> elucidate over the next 20 mails or so.. I'll get back to you then. > > I realise trying to extend the scope of what you expect me to explain > to include life, the universe and everything so you can moan that at me > that I didn't include a demonstration of why the sky is blue in my > original email is your strategy here
No it's not; see above. Honestly, you really think I waste time strategising about how to deal with *you*? Most I ever do is joke with mates about how obnoxious you are, though these days it's more your cronies (and no doubt your sekrit personality on the forums.) Honestly, I don't need to waste time thinking how to deal with you, little boy: you always turn up being nasty[1] and proving the point. That's why you were eventually kicked out on your arse after so much time.
> , but really... Do you genuinely > care? >
Not about the over-engineered, bloated crap you come out with. I do hope exherbo is taking all your ideas without review, or at very least all the ones you've presented to the dev m-l. If only christel and kloeri weren't involved, I'd be able to cackle with delight. I mean that crap you came out with about subshell die over a year ago, and the nonsense you spouted about trap on the dev m-l recently. I can't take you seriously as you're simply unable to grasp that other people might know more than you; hence you're a liability to any project, and it's no wonder you couldn't get a job outta Uni, despite all those legions of people who think you're so hawt.
>> > Which brings me back >> > to my original point -- mandating a particular behaviour to enable >> > some horrible ebuild hackery that doesn't even do what people want >> > would be a very silly decision. >> > >> You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is >> needed? > > It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions > changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been > covered. >
IOW we need to consider the EAPI, which is what was being discussed on the technical list.
>> >> Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that >> >> not providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during >> >> the actual install, is not such a good way for the mangler to >> >> ascertain ahead of time whether or not that phase will be needed, >> >> *irrespective* of how any extant implementation does it. >> > >> > Your premise is faulty. Ebuilds may not call phase functions, and >> > never do. >> > >> Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean >> the .ebuild > > So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you > mean? Kindly explain. >
Work it out, genius. Feel free to keep spouting; I won't be answering this thread for at least 10 more of your emails, if it's still going. [1] sums it up.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>