Re: versionator.eclass terminator, was [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator? Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree? It would help us now if you were to simply record your mistakes for everybody

Re: versionator.eclass terminator, was [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:28:00 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator? Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree?

Re: versionator.eclass terminator, was [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Monday 18 May 2009, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator? Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree? It would help us now if you

Re: versionator.eclass terminator, was [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated

2009-05-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:42:19 +0200 Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm not following. Why should it be discouraged? I was happy with it until now. Versionator is a lot better than what people were doing before I wrote it. It's just nowhere near as good as what a package manager provided