On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:52:41 +0200, lee wrote: > > You hold onto your issues with portage like they were some treasured > > memory of a long-since departed loved one, while all the time > > apparently ignoring the correct valid solutions offeered by kind > > folks on this list. > > > > Let it go. The devs know about portage output. I don't see you > > submitting patches though. > > You ran out of arguments
This thread ran out of arguments a long time ago. Repeating the same ones doesn't count. > and remain at insisting that the problem is > known and cannot be fixed because it's too complicated It's not that it cannot be fixed, just that it is very difficult to do what you "just" want. > while rejecting > suggestions but asking for patches. So I have no reason to think that > patches would be any more welcome than suggestions, Patches are always more welcome than suggestions. "Fix it!" is never as welcome as "here's how". I think it was Canek who said "code talks". > and now even if you > came up with some pointer what to look at (since emerge, for example, is > a wrapper script from which I couldn't see where to start), Really? The first few lines of the script tell you where the real scripts are? The wrapper seems to be there to deal with different default Python versions. > I wouldn't waste my time with it. Then why on Earth would you expect the devs to do it for you with that attitude? Adding the word "just" to a demand does not make the task any simpler, nor does it increase your chances of getting what you want. On the contrary, it serves to illustrate that you do not grasp the complexity of the situation. -- Neil Bothwick Three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't.
pgppcNG6DDejN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
