Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > At this point, I think it would be most helpful towards us reaching a > conclusion if you agreed to refrain from commenting further until > you've understood the problem at hand.
In other words: After I disproved all your wrong arguments, you try repeatedly to ignore my technical points and instead prefer to attack me personally of not understanding what I am saying. Fortunately, this is a developer's mailing list which will not get fooled by your strategy. > You see, the rest of us are using "broken" to mean "broken" in a > technical sense, based upon our understanding of how ebuilds, the VDB > and metadata work. It seems by "the rest of use" you mean me: That's why I pointed out repeatedly *what* is broken and why (namely the concept of having orphaned packages, and I wlil not repeat the example). > You seem to be using it to mean "does something you > superficially or ideologically don't like". You seem to be using it this way: That's what you call dynamic deps broken but static not, although both face the same problems. > This is a technical discussion Exactly. So instead of writing such pointless personal attacks, you should give technical arguments.
