On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Apparently, though unproven, at 15:09 on Thursday 02 June 2011, Indi did > opine > thusly: > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Mike Edenfield wrote: > > > On 6/1/2011 5:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > > Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi > > > > did > > > > > > > > opine thusly: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > > >>> Personally, I'd be livid if portage were to remove my carefully > > > >>> crafted work from time immemorial, without so much as a > > > >>> by-your-leave. Anyone who wants to delete his own work is free to do > > > >>> so, but the rest of us ought not to be required to suffer it. > > > >> > > > >> Doesn't matter to me, my longstanding rsync habit ensures there are > > > >> always a couple of copies of my last known good configuration. > > > >> Doesn't your carefully crafted work from time immemorial deserve > > > >> rsync too? [cue rsync jingle] > > > >> > > > >> :) > > > > > > > > That's like saying that just because I have panel-beating skills and > > > > lots of scrap metal in the back yard that it's perfectly OK for > > > > marauding gangs of thugs to have at my car in the parking lots with > > > > baseball bats. > > > > > > Best analogy ever. > > > > Hardly, though it does have a lot of drama which is what matters to > > some. :) > > Actually it's quite relevant. > > Just because I have and can use rsync to undo damage done by dubious features > of portage is not a valid reason for portage to have dubious features. Which > explains why portage by and large does not have dubious features. > > So it's a good analogy, differing only in degree of devastation. >
OK, if you say so. I guess the subject doesn't have the emotional charge for me it does for some. My point was pretty much "makes no difference to me, long as I know what to expect and how it works". -- caveat utilitor ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤
