On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530 > "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else >> someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it. > > Untrue. The amount of effort that's been wasted messing around with > as-needed could easily have been directed to fixing the root cause > instead. Debian have already done most of the work.
And the time you just wasted spewing rhetoric on this thread? Since you have such a deep understanding of everything, couldn't you have done the rest of the work, posted it here and instantly convinced everyone? >> Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to "fix libtool". > > But it doesn't work. And fixing libtool isn't vapour. Read the Debian > patch. Fixing libtool isn't vapour, neither is the debian patch, but your plan/proposal to do is non-existant. You're just saying "Do this because I say you should, I don't know how, but you should. Oh, and if you don't you're all idiots". >> Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway, >> and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation. > > You seriously think Gentoo has the manpower to go around making > unnecessary changes to upstream code? And there's nothing in the C++ > standard discouraging static initialisation. The tracker bug (bug 129413) seems to say otherwise. >> Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon. > > And the Debian patch is...? Useless unless it's complete. As I said above, fix it and convince us. Show us how wrong we are. We'll be glad and grateful. Don't whine about it and waste everyone's time and energy. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
