| 1 |
On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 |
| 3 |
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack as |
| 8 |
> > > ugly as eblits? |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather about "when |
| 15 |
> you want to change something you don't maintain, you have to justify it |
| 16 |
> properly" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and basically |
| 21 |
make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> aim for bus |
| 22 |
factor of 1 and/or making himself indispensable)? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
2. enforce package managers to exhibit non-PMS behavior by making core |
| 25 |
system packages rely on it? Not to mention minor incompatibilities |
| 26 |
causing silent breakage. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Do you really believe *we* ought to be explaining ourselves? All those |
| 29 |
reasons have been provided. If Mike does not accept them, we can't do |
| 30 |
anything about it. You can claim we ought to explain till the maintainer |
| 31 |
is convinced but I think we both know that nobody's going to convince |
| 32 |
anyone, and the only result would be stalling the change for even more |
| 33 |
than the 9 months so far. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives