[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3
From:       Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh () googlemail ! com>
Date:       2014-09-30 17:58:18
Message-ID: 20140930185818.097f5ff7 () googlemail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:37:20 +0200
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:05:19 +0000 (UTC)
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> > >> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
> > >>
> > >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
> >
> > It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't
> > trolling, he was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here
> > understood his point. There were no attacks and no "foul language",
> > so can we move forward?
> 
> Constructiveness does not rely on just making points, as replacing
> nano with Vim is out of the context of adding bc back to stage3.
> Editors are a world apart from a build tool, even more so from being
> POSIX. In order to move forward beyond this point, that needs to be
> recognized.

But POSIX does describe vi. That was the point...

(And until fairly recently, texlive used to require 'ex' if you wanted
to build it fully from unpatched sources.)

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]