| 1 |
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:45:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > As I've said every time you make that |
| 4 |
> > absurd claim, this is not the place to post a two hundred page |
| 5 |
> > explanation of how every last bit of the computer works, from |
| 6 |
> > electrons upwards, in response to a simple question. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> Yes because we really need to discuss transistor logic for this. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Right, in the same way we need to discuss package manager loading |
| 11 |
internals for this. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> >> you keep making things much more personal than they need to be. |
| 14 |
> >> I was discussing how and when that metadata is generated. As |
| 15 |
> >> Harring pointed out, pkgcore does it at a _different_ point in |
| 16 |
> >> time. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Funny how that slipped by, isn't it? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What? I already mentioned how there were other obscure internals |
| 21 |
factors related to the decision. There are all kinds of ways one could |
| 22 |
do it. As it happens, I don't like the Pkgcore way primarily because it |
| 23 |
directly encourages the kind of screwups that happened with the first |
| 24 |
Pkgcore EAPI 2 attempt. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> (and no doubt your sekrit personality on the forums.) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Unlike you, I don't post from multiple accounts or pretending to be |
| 29 |
several people. (As an aside: if you feel you must carry on calling me |
| 30 |
a terrorist baby-munching communist or whatever it is this week, please |
| 31 |
humour me and do it from the account with your real name on it.) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> I mean that crap you came out with about subshell die over a year |
| 34 |
> ago, and the nonsense you spouted about trap on the dev m-l recently. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
You mean the results of having several people try every solution in |
| 37 |
depth, evaluate them against the way ebuilds are coded and come up |
| 38 |
with the one that works? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> >> You mean the hackery one might use to detect whether a phase is |
| 41 |
> >> needed? |
| 42 |
> > |
| 43 |
> > It won't, though, because the meaning of phases and phase functions |
| 44 |
> > changes between EAPIs. Which is also something that's already been |
| 45 |
> > covered. |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> IOW we need to consider the EAPI, which is what was being discussed |
| 48 |
> on the technical list. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Yes, which is what my original reply (the one that got you so upset) |
| 51 |
said in the first place. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> >> Hehe. You're good at that trick: you know full well I don't mean |
| 54 |
> >> the .ebuild |
| 55 |
> > |
| 56 |
> > So, uh, if by "an ebuild" you don't mean "the .ebuild", what do you |
| 57 |
> > mean? Kindly explain. |
| 58 |
> > |
| 59 |
> Work it out, genius. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
I'm sorry, I can't work that out on my own. Please elucidate. Help me |
| 62 |
to understand why you think PMS is wrong with its restrictions on phase |
| 63 |
functions. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives