Apparently, though unproven, at 15:09 on Thursday 02 June 2011, Indi did opine thusly:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Mike Edenfield wrote: > > On 6/1/2011 5:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi > > > did > > > > > > opine thusly: > > >> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > >>> Personally, I'd be livid if portage were to remove my carefully > > >>> crafted work from time immemorial, without so much as a > > >>> by-your-leave. Anyone who wants to delete his own work is free to do > > >>> so, but the rest of us ought not to be required to suffer it. > > >> > > >> Doesn't matter to me, my longstanding rsync habit ensures there are > > >> always a couple of copies of my last known good configuration. > > >> Doesn't your carefully crafted work from time immemorial deserve > > >> rsync too? [cue rsync jingle] > > >> > > >> :) > > > > > > That's like saying that just because I have panel-beating skills and > > > lots of scrap metal in the back yard that it's perfectly OK for > > > marauding gangs of thugs to have at my car in the parking lots with > > > baseball bats. > > > > Best analogy ever. > > Hardly, though it does have a lot of drama which is what matters to > some. :) Actually it's quite relevant. Just because I have and can use rsync to undo damage done by dubious features of portage is not a valid reason for portage to have dubious features. Which explains why portage by and large does not have dubious features. So it's a good analogy, differing only in degree of devastation. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
