On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:46:53PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> This has been pointed
> out ever since the issue was first discussed, but some people like to
> stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss legitimate technical
> arguments as "trolling" and "politics".
The issue is some folk are trying to be pragmatic, and some folk are
sticking to "it's not the proper long term solution thus don't do it
The question shouldn't be "is it long term the right or wrong
solution", the question should be "yes it's not perfect, but what is
the gain of deploying it?"
Literally, do we break more by deploying it then we gain? Is the
reduction in intermediate broken packages (and general linkage
whonkyness) being mostly sorted worth the cost of some cranky packages
breaking from it?
That is the question. If the only correct answer is "it must be the
right technical solution always" we'd theoretically be running hurd
rather than linux after all, nor would the prefix project be in wide
Alternatively rather than arguing, someone needs to go out and get
some data to back this change (and/or back the stance it causes more
damage than it's worth).
Personally, I've been running as-needed for a while- while not a fan
of it, it's been an overall plus for my usage. The question is if
it's an overall gain to deploy globally (iirc fedora/ubuntu are
running this way now).