On Thursday 06 July 2006 23:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > No, Diego. The argument is that you're coming up with a horrible and > unnecessary hack where there are far cleaner alternatives, and that > you're blindly sticking to it and trying to throw off any objections by > devious means because you don't want to scrap said hack after all the > misguided effort you've spent on it. However, since you seem to be > incapable of admitting the gaping flaws in your own work, I'm asking for > someone else to point this out to you in a formal manner rather than > watch this thread go on for even longer.
Wait, isn't that what _you_ usually do? Like climbing up on mirrors when you misunderstood something and blamed someone for an error that was never made, trying to find another glitch in the procedure to back it up? Yeah that really sounds like you more than me. I'm entirely ready to scrap what I have here if I find _valid reasons to_. All you seem to be able to say is that you don't like this, you point to a control that users have not much for a valid reason than for the simple fact that the useflag was a good way to allow user to choose what it had without forcing it to use support that was not supported on their system. A solution that worked, but that is not the only one, and that I wouldn't consider a great choice that users really need to be able to use Gentoo. The most interesting point shown up until now is the one about non-gcc compatibility, that I actually thought about for a while, but I thought -dM was unix standard option, Harald got me there, and I'll be checking for something in ICC. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
pgpx6QSrOFiRm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
