| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:46:53PM +0100, David Leverton wrote: |
| 2 |
> This has been pointed |
| 3 |
> out ever since the issue was first discussed, but some people like to |
| 4 |
> stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss legitimate technical |
| 5 |
> arguments as "trolling" and "politics". |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The issue is some folk are trying to be pragmatic, and some folk are |
| 8 |
sticking to "it's not the proper long term solution thus don't do it |
| 9 |
at all". |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The question shouldn't be "is it long term the right or wrong |
| 12 |
solution", the question should be "yes it's not perfect, but what is |
| 13 |
the gain of deploying it?" |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Literally, do we break more by deploying it then we gain? Is the |
| 16 |
reduction in intermediate broken packages (and general linkage |
| 17 |
whonkyness) being mostly sorted worth the cost of some cranky packages |
| 18 |
breaking from it? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That is the question. If the only correct answer is "it must be the |
| 21 |
right technical solution always" we'd theoretically be running hurd |
| 22 |
rather than linux after all, nor would the prefix project be in wide |
| 23 |
usage. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Alternatively rather than arguing, someone needs to go out and get |
| 26 |
some data to back this change (and/or back the stance it causes more |
| 27 |
damage than it's worth). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Personally, I've been running as-needed for a while- while not a fan |
| 30 |
of it, it's been an overall plus for my usage. The question is if |
| 31 |
it's an overall gain to deploy globally (iirc fedora/ubuntu are |
| 32 |
running this way now). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
~harring |
Archives