1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:55:41 +0100 |
3 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
4 |
>> >> It wasn't about calling it in the wrong place, it was about how you |
5 |
>> >> test for whether the ebuild+eclasses provide a function, or use a |
6 |
>> >> phase. |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> > The two issues are the same. |
9 |
>> > |
10 |
>> You mean the three? They all boil down to whether a function is |
11 |
>> declared, yes. Have a cookie: you'll need it. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> So if you know they're the same, why did you say that it's about |
14 |
> something else? |
15 |
> |
16 |
*cough* user perception vs reality; in your case there's at least a third |
17 |
level going on ofc. |
18 |
|
19 |
>> > There are lots of constraints on what the bash side can do that are |
20 |
>> > for package manager implementation sanity reasons. The whole |
21 |
>> > constant cache requirement thing, for example, is purely a side |
22 |
>> > effect of how package managers work. |
23 |
>> > |
24 |
>> Yes and it's well understood and has been discussed on the list. This |
25 |
>> hasn't, to my knowledge, yet everytime something which has /not/ been |
26 |
>> discussed is brought up, you rear up spouting on about vague hints of |
27 |
>> doom to do with portage, irrespective of how many Gentoo systems it's |
28 |
>> built and maintains. You obfuscate and spam the list with 15 mails |
29 |
>> instead of simply explaining in one go. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Uhm. No. My original post explained it all in a level of detail |
32 |
> suitable for the issue at hand. |
33 |
`Level of detail for issue at hand' is similar to a user thinking it's two |
34 |
or three issues when it's one. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Unfortunately, you then had to jump in |
37 |
> and expect me to explain twenty other at best vaguely related issues |
38 |
> which weren't under discussion. |
39 |
Nope; just if you don't want to discuss, kindly stay away from any of my |
40 |
posts in future. Just ignore me and perhaps someone more able to carry on a |
41 |
discussion will respond instead (and yes, that does preclude your fanbois.) |
42 |
|
43 |
> As I've said every time you make that |
44 |
> absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page |
45 |
> explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from electrons |
46 |
> upwards, in response to a simple question. |
47 |
> |
48 |
Yes because we really need to discuss transistor logic for this. (And yes, I |
49 |
really do know more about it than you.) |
50 |
|
51 |
>> you keep making things much more personal than they need to be. |
52 |
>> I was discussing how and when that metadata is generated. As Harring |
53 |
>> pointed out, pkgcore does it at a _different_ point in time. |
54 |
|
55 |
Funny how that slipped by, isn't it? |
56 |
|
57 |
>> IIRC weren't you the guy who deliberately took a troll as your avatar |
58 |
>> in order to flagrantly ban-evade and troll the forums a while back? |
59 |
> |
60 |
> Uh. No. |
61 |
> |
62 |
Yes, dear.. http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3440/1183976821967ju4.jpg |
63 |
|
64 |
>> > It is of course highly obvious that there are |
65 |
>> > several ways of achieving the desired result, and highly obvious |
66 |
>> > that there are a whole bunch of factors affecting which one works |
67 |
>> > best. |
68 |
>> > |
69 |
>> Yes, but it's not something we can discuss, I know, because I am |
70 |
>> 'obviously' too stupid to understand. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> If you genuinely care about how Paludis deals with the bash side of |
73 |
> things, |
74 |
|
75 |
No I don't you moron; I want to discuss package managers and the |
76 |
technicalities of using them with people who work with portage, pkgcore and |
77 |
Gentoo. You just keep getting in the way, acting somehow as if you're |
78 |
elucidating, when all you're doing is quite pathetic attention-seeking. |
79 |
|
80 |
> do a little background reading and then post a mail to the |
81 |
> Paludis mailing list asking about it. |
82 |
|
83 |
No thanks, my first and only real-time conversation with you two years ago |
84 |
convinced me that all the Gentoo people who couldn't stand to even talk |
85 |
about you had good reason. Up until that point, based on the mailing-list, |
86 |
I assumed that when you didn't get an answer it was because you were right. |
87 |
Not that everyone was just sick to death of you after 3 or 4 years. |
88 |
|
89 |
Their embarrasment wasn't technical iow, it was purely about your |
90 |
personality, which is poisoned, perhaps by your Aspergers or w/e you're |
91 |
calling it this year. I doubt it though: I think you're just a nasty piece |
92 |
of work who hides his craven cowardice behind his technical ability, and |
93 |
uses that to get a kick out of beating up on newbs. We see them all the |
94 |
time in #bash, ##c and so on; put bluntly you and your cohorts are the |
95 |
reason I never got involved with KDE on Gentoo, despite having used it for |
96 |
over a decade. |
97 |
|
98 |
>> > As it happens, all three package managers picked different |
99 |
>> > solutions, all based upon extremely obscure internals issues. |
100 |
>> |
101 |
>> I read that as "stuff I don't really understand." No doubt you'll |
102 |
>> elucidate over the next 20 mails or so.. I'll get back to you then. |
103 |
> |
104 |
> I realise trying to extend the scope of what you expect me to explain |
105 |
> to include life, the universe and everything so you can moan that at me |
106 |
> that I didn't include a demonstration of why the sky is blue in my |
107 |
> original email is your strategy here |
108 |
|
109 |
No it's not; see above. Honestly, you really think I waste time strategising |
110 |
about how to deal with *you*? Most I ever do is joke with mates about how |
111 |
obnoxious you are, though these days it's more your cronies (and no doubt |
112 |
your sekrit personality on the forums.) Honestly, I don't need to waste |
113 |
time thinking how to deal with you, little boy: you always turn up being |
114 |
nasty[1] and proving the point. That's why you were eventually kicked out |
115 |
on your arse after so much time. |
116 |
|
117 |
> , but really... Do you genuinely |
118 |
> care? |
119 |
> |
120 |
Not about the over-engineered, bloated crap you come out with. I do hope |
121 |
exherbo is taking all your ideas without review, or at very least all the |
122 |
ones you've presented to the dev m-l. If only christel and kloeri weren't |
123 |
involved, I'd be able to cackle with delight. |
124 |
|
125 |
I mean that crap you came out with about subshell die over a year ago, and |
126 |
the nonsense you spouted about trap on the dev m-l recently. I can't take |
127 |
you seriously as you're simply unable to grasp that other people might know |
128 |
more than you; hence you're a liability to any project, and it's no wonder |
129 |
you couldn't get a job outta Uni, despite all those legions of people who |
130 |
think you're so hawt. |
131 |
|
132 |
>> > Which brings me back |
133 |
>> > to my original point -- mandating a particular behaviour to enable |
134 |
>> > some horrible ebuild hackery that doesn't even do what people want |
135 |
>> > would be a very silly decision. |
136 |
>> > |
137 |
>> You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is |
138 |
>> needed? |
139 |
> |
140 |
> It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions |
141 |
> changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been |
142 |
> covered. |
143 |
> |
144 |
IOW we need to consider the EAPI, which is what was being discussed on the |
145 |
technical list. |
146 |
|
147 |
>> >> Strange how you think you can read my mind.. I actually think that |
148 |
>> >> not providing functions an ebuild might call in a phase, during |
149 |
>> >> the actual install, is not such a good way for the mangler to |
150 |
>> >> ascertain ahead of time whether or not that phase will be needed, |
151 |
>> >> *irrespective* of how any extant implementation does it. |
152 |
>> > |
153 |
>> > Your premise is faulty. Ebuilds may not call phase functions, and |
154 |
>> > never do. |
155 |
>> > |
156 |
>> Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean |
157 |
>> the .ebuild |
158 |
> |
159 |
> So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you |
160 |
> mean? Kindly explain. |
161 |
> |
162 |
Work it out, genius. |
163 |
|
164 |
Feel free to keep spouting; I won't be answering this thread for at least 10 |
165 |
more of your emails, if it's still going. |
166 |
|
167 |
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/56682/focus=56997 sums |
168 |
it up. |