| 1 |
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 20:11:34 -0600 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:26:19PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 12:54:26 -0500 |
| 7 |
> > > Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:13 AM, konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > >> > Please consider promoting the use of tinfo flag in packages that |
| 11 |
> > >> > depend on sys-libs/ncurses so that they would synchronize properly |
| 12 |
> > >> > with sys-libs/ncurses[tinfo]. |
| 13 |
> > >> |
| 14 |
> > >> I would rather see the tinfo USE flag removed from ncurses. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > vapier doesn't consider this QA violation a QA violation. |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/487844 |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Perhaps QA could take some action then? |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Updating ~1500 ebuilds with a [tinfo=] use-dep seems like a poor solution. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> <qa hat on> |
| 25 |
> Our policies are in the dev manual, so please cite the violation there. |
| 26 |
> If you can't, this is not a qa violation, so please don't call it one. |
| 27 |
> </qa hat> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I don't see a problem with the use flag and suggest updating the other ebuilds. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The flag randomly changes ABI, breaking all reverse dependencies. |
| 32 |
Please tell me this is a good practice. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
But yeah, Gentoo lately is: everything with a single bit of sense has |
| 35 |
to be converted into 3-page manual that covers every corner case, |
| 36 |
and eventually has 5 ways for every developer to ignore it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
| 41 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives