On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before > > > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If > > > package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible > > > thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. > > > > Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are > > complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. > > Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers > think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims > to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?
When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0. Did it fully? No, bugs existed. Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree. See the failing here? Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is required when your own code hasn't met said standards. You're also dodging the fact that apparently you've known about eapi1 incompatibilities and intentionally withheld that information for the apparent purpose of discrediting pkgcore. You've been stating for a long while eapi1 support was broke- for the default iuse support months back, and ongoing- I get the very strong vibe you've been sitting on bugs for a long while. I've put up with lies from y'all for a long while- simplest gross example is the claims pkgcore devs were forking the format when in actuality paludis devs (you) were forking off exheres at the time of the accusation. I'm accustomed to that bullshit, and I stomach it because limited dealing with you benefits gentoo, at least as long as you wield the political hammer that is PMS. What's over the line however is that via your withholding of information, you intentionally allowing users to see breakage to try and discredit the competition. That's not acceptable in any form. Actual bug reports, for ebuild support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically within same day. I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your insepid games). The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional breakage admittedly is not possible. However considering the behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS. You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it is pretty fricking sad. ~harring
pgp7VMFyQ2dhh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
