Tom Wijsman wrote: > If we were to take this example to its extreme; then we would have to > create an inventory of which INSTALL_MASK entries are good and bad for > each ebuild, in which we cover all the files installed by that ebuild.
Why are you directing this at me? Please don't cc me off-list. Keep list discussion to the list. (That's an old one.) As for "extremes" I think it a dubious argument, much like many of your "if only we define X like Y, even though we've all been discussing X" at the end of a long chain of usually futile "discussion". It's evidently meant for a few packages which would break, to avoid obvious breakage, and not as a blanket mechanism. That would run counter to the whole spirit of "you break it, you pick up the pieces." IF there is a need to do it, that's how you can do it. If not, it's got nothing to do with me anyhow, since I'm not the one calling for it, nor raising the topic. Oh, and I realise you have difficulty configuring your email client[1]: it's still rude of you to constantly quote people's email addresses inline, imo. Long, tedious "justifications" notwithstanding. Especially when it turns out you can't even configure your client, and it might reasonably be surmised you have spouted "justification" to cover ignorance. I'm perfectly happy to take the time to edit my responses, in answer to your last justification for this behaviour. [1] http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-user&m=139549986219431&w=2 -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
