On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:39 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Umm... So in the paragraph above, you say an EAPI-specific eclass > > isn't a good idea, and here you push it as the proposed solution. > > Huh? Consistency, please... > > Read it (and my explanation of it earlier in the thread) until you > understand it. There is nothing consistent in what I'm saying.
You are *so* correct. There really is nothing consistent in your replies. Rather, you've decided to pick and choose how you respond to maximize insult. It's *so* much easier to simply avoid any potential issues than to actually discuss them. As such, I've decided to quit responding to this thread until someone who wishes to actually participate in a discussion, rather than trying to "win" it comes along. Thank you for your input and have a nice day. > > I still think that EAPI should not be allowed to be set in an eclass > > globally. All I can see is it causing problems for tons of users who > > don't have a clue what is happening to their systems. > > EAPI *can't* be set in an eclass correctly anyway because EAPI is > allowed to (and likely will in the future) change the behaviour of > inherit. ...and this proves my point. Rather than simply stating this, you decided to post $diety knows how many lines of completely worthless information again and again. Had you simply said *exactly this* at the beginning, the thread/discussion would have been over. This is exactly what people mean when they say that they feel that you are not participating in discussions fairly. It's like you specifically hold back information that you know and bait people into saying things simply so you call put out the ace from your sleeve and point out how someone else is wrong. Yay! You "win". -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
