On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:25:44 -0800 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Er, I did. Read my first post to the thread. That is exactly what I said. Then, once you've done that, read other people's questions, which expand upon the original topic and which can't be handled simply by shoving EAPI in each ebuild and doing nothing else. > This is exactly what people mean when they say that they feel that > you are not participating in discussions fairly. What. Please explain how my original post to this thread wasn't sufficient to answer the original question, and how other related but more complex questions that other people posted later on are answered merely by that. I think you should go back, read the whole thread ordered by date and then consider whether an apology for your behaviour is in order. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
