1 |
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:16:45 +0800 |
2 |
konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 20:11:34 -0600 |
6 |
> > William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:26:19PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
9 |
> >> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
> >> > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 12:54:26 -0500 |
11 |
> >> > > Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
12 |
> >> > > |
13 |
> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:13 AM, konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
14 |
> >> > >> > Please consider promoting the use of tinfo flag in packages that |
15 |
> >> > >> > depend on sys-libs/ncurses so that they would synchronize properly |
16 |
> >> > >> > with sys-libs/ncurses[tinfo]. |
17 |
> >> > >> |
18 |
> >> > >> I would rather see the tinfo USE flag removed from ncurses. |
19 |
> >> > > |
20 |
> >> > > vapier doesn't consider this QA violation a QA violation. |
21 |
> >> > > |
22 |
> >> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/487844 |
23 |
> >> > |
24 |
> >> > Perhaps QA could take some action then? |
25 |
> >> > |
26 |
> >> > Updating ~1500 ebuilds with a [tinfo=] use-dep seems like a poor solution. |
27 |
> >> |
28 |
> >> <qa hat on> |
29 |
> >> Our policies are in the dev manual, so please cite the violation there. |
30 |
> >> If you can't, this is not a qa violation, so please don't call it one. |
31 |
> >> </qa hat> |
32 |
> >> |
33 |
> >> I don't see a problem with the use flag and suggest updating the other ebuilds. |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > The flag randomly changes ABI, breaking all reverse dependencies. |
36 |
> > Please tell me this is a good practice. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> And there you had just proven that the ncurses package is installed in |
39 |
> two modes, showing that a flag like tinfo is needed to represent them. |
40 |
> It's not the ncurses package's fault. It's the depending packages' |
41 |
> responsibility to properly adapt to it. |
42 |
|
43 |
Packages are not intelligent beings, so they can't have responsibility. |
44 |
Package maintainers have. You can't expect people to spend a lot of |
45 |
time updating a lot of packages every time a new ABI-breaking flag is |
46 |
suddenly introduced in a core package, if it's not even clear if it |
47 |
going to stay long-term. |
48 |
|
49 |
Not to mention the USE flag will be a true PITA for our users. Just |
50 |
imagine all the conflicts when one package doesn't support |
51 |
ncurses[tinfo], or the other way around... |
52 |
|
53 |
> Basically you're suggesting to drop either of those modes. Now I'm |
54 |
> asking, would one of those (likely tinfo mode) be workable in all |
55 |
> packages? Do you find that it would cause less issues than this |
56 |
> solution? And I'm talking about end-user issues, not ebuild |
57 |
> implementation issues. |
58 |
|
59 |
Yes. If I recall correctly, libncurses links to libtinfo, so packages |
60 |
already built continue to work. Of course, new packages (including deps |
61 |
of the libraries already linked to libncurses) may fail to build. |
62 |
|
63 |
Remember that binary distros have to make a choice. I can understand |
64 |
keeping the flag to help people migrate more gracefully when building |
65 |
from source. But it's not a way to run things long-term. |
66 |
|
67 |
> I find that forcing depending packages to follow that mode sounds |
68 |
> worse than what you claim a QA violation. |
69 |
|
70 |
Really? Because 'choice' or do you have a better argument than that? |
71 |
|
72 |
-- |
73 |
Best regards, |
74 |
Michał Górny |