| 1 |
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. |
| 9 |
> > > Huettel: |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack |
| 12 |
> > > > as ugly as eblits? |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather about |
| 19 |
> > "when you want to change something you don't maintain, you have to |
| 20 |
> > justify it properly" |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and |
| 25 |
> basically make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> aim |
| 26 |
> for bus factor of 1 and/or making himself indispensable)? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This is very (too) subjective. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> 2. enforce package managers to exhibit non-PMS behavior by making core |
| 31 |
> system packages rely on it? Not to mention minor incompatibilities |
| 32 |
> causing silent breakage. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
What, exactly, is non-PMS ? The access rule has been added after last |
| 35 |
EAPI was approved it seems. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
[...] |
Archives