Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:04:11 +0100 > Steven J Long <sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't >> > already been explained, I say how to fix it. >> Oh? Where on Earth did you do that in this thread? All you've said so >> far is that preserve-libs is "an awful hack that doesn't really work, >> is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in subtle >> ways." No reasoning given whatsoever. Nor any indication of how to >> fix anything. > > preserve-libs has been discussed to death previously and elsewhere. The > changes needed to implement it correctly were included in the original > EAPI 3, but were dropped due to lack of Portage implementation.
The usual protocol when you're making assertions like that, if it's already been discussed, is to provide a url or two to prior discussion. Or at least state which feature(set) it is you think which does that. After lots of reading, and recent discussion, you appear to believe that SLOT operators are the "conceptually sound" method of choice that doesn't "break things in subtle ways". Is that correct? > There's no need to repeat the whole discussion here. No, just provide evidence and reasoning for any assertions you make, especially when you are criticising someone else's work. You don't have to repeat yourself: just link to the issues, if you can't summarise them yourself. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
