> Ah... that was an example of a package that isn't installed that
> *shouldn't* have *negative* return from built_with_use.
Wrong. Substitute "positive" for "negative", and your sentence makes
sense, but invalidates your point.
> Equally, it hasn't been built *without* that USE flag. Non-self-dual,
as
> I said.
So *what* if it's "non-self-dual"? Who cares in the slightest whether
it's "non-self-dual"? How does that invalidate the conclusion that the
package hasn't been built? Repeating these claims with nothing to back
them up, doesn't make them true.
> Tertium datur: die. ("mori"?)
Any moron can quote Latin from a textbook in the hope of appearing
clever (bonus points if you fail to form a complete sentence, and end in
a question mark to create an aura of ambiguity). Challenge my logic in
*English*.
> Guessing in exception situations creates bugs.
It's not "guessing". It's sensible behaviour. It's not random. it's
logical, it's consistent, and it makes sense.
> None of us are getting paid. The "them" in question are fellow
> developers.
I know. Doesn't turn "falling over in a big heap" from a bad result into
a good result.
> vdb is preferred over package.provided.
Of course. It has a higher priority, and is consulted first. Your point
is?
> Je ne comprends pas.
The bug I'm referring to is bug #139842. Which is currently marked
"wontfix", and contains 2 patches which fix the bug.
--
[email protected] mailing list
