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$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [LONG] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses by Ciaran McCreesh
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.

Replies

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