| 1 |
> Quite Erroneous Debate? |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> > > Jakub is no longer a bug-wrangler, or a dev, he retired last month. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Ah, good things still happen ? ;P |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Jakub was very good at his job, but he does have an attitude problem. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Are you trying to emulate him, you are already halfway there? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Give the guy a break :P. When your having to deal with lots of noobs |
| 13 |
being retarded telling you you're wrong on a daily basis when you know |
| 14 |
otherwise, I guess most people get frustrated at it :P. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So lets not be bashing him, especially when hes not around to fend for |
| 17 |
himself eh? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Imo, the cyclic dep problem could be solved as thus, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
A depends B |
| 22 |
B depends C||A |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Where C is a minimalist subset of A required for building B, which is |
| 25 |
only depended on if A is not present. |
| 26 |
A is also a replacement for C. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So the flow would go like such. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Emerge A: |
| 31 |
* depends on b |
| 32 |
* A is missing, so depend on C |
| 33 |
*emerges C* |
| 34 |
*emerges B* |
| 35 |
*removes C* <-- otherwise A & C containing the same files = headache |
| 36 |
*emerges A* |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Yes, indeed I agree that we could just do this by hand by changing a |
| 39 |
USE flag, but we should at least be open to the idea of looking for a |
| 40 |
way to automatically resolve the problem. Computers exist to make our |
| 41 |
life easier, not the other way around :) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Kent |
| 45 |
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x| |
| 46 |
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@×××.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}' |
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives