On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | If a dev doesn't have adequate knowledge for a particular package he > | shouldn't be fscking with it in the first place. So there said package > | can sit, having only the ability to install to / just like it always > | has until someone with interest/need/knowledge comes along and takes > | care of it. > > You and I know that. Brian seems to be assuming that the people that do > the work will know how to handle every single package in the tree.
You're agreeing to the point kito made (my point spelled out for you) and you take a parting shot at me? Was that really needed? > Eh? No. It's about getting a major change done cleanly and without > causing another disaster of OSX-sized proportions. Fud. OSX was a disaster _because_ it was implemented and dumped on everyone else, without involving anyone else. This discussion/glep is to hash out the idea and issues, _rather_ then making it official and dumping the issues on others to address. > | > No, they're a demonstration of why the GLEP in its current form is > | > inadequate. I'll carry on pulling up further examples until you > | > realise that it's not just a minor issue, it's a huge problem that > | > needs a big change to the GLEP. > | > | How about suggesting what that big change would be? > > I've done that already several times in this thread. You've suggested ICANINSTALLTO, which has become SUPPORTS. Beyond that you've either insulted those involved (the initial IRC discussion), or resorted to heckling the proposal via the same angle repeatedly. Funny part is above you agree on the response I've stated to you repeatedly, only after it's written by someone else. Intermixing another lovely bit of your slander/attacks. > The reason that this thing was written up as a GLEP was because the > > author was trying to bypass the discussion and get around having to > fix various flaws that had been pointed out previously. I suggested haubi write it up as a glep, and bring it to this ml for the purpose of discussion of it, issues and all. The funny thing is, if we just slipped the changes into portage and released it, we would be sidestepping the issues. It would be the OSX disaster. Write the sucker up as a glep, issues and all for discussion, and you attack those involved as "trying to bypass the discussion". So pretty much it's screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. That's definitely one way to block progress on it; even bringing up the idea equals you flaming/attacking those involved with it. The entertaining aspect of this whole exchange is that you agree to jason's rephrasing of it (plus binpkg issues), which is the same damn thing you've been arguing against. Basically, you've been an ass for the sake of being an ass thus far for anyone involved in the proposal. It's not needed, and just wasted a chunk of my time, and yours for no valid reason. ~brian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
