| 1 |
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 01:11:39 Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:28:57 +0100 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > And then why bother when the tree doesn't reflect PMS. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Maybe if some people would stop ignoring PMS on whim because they don't |
| 8 |
> agree with something in it this wouldn't be the case. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, we have at least one prior discussion and a year of precedent on the |
| 11 |
bash 3.0 / 3.2 thing. Since there were no sanctions for doing it, there's no |
| 12 |
way to break things with it (because you have a recent enough bash guaranteed) |
| 13 |
and it is very convenient people started using it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
After a year of use (and getting used more and more) I just don't see how any |
| 16 |
sane person can think about forbidding it NOW. It's too late. We've moved on. |
| 17 |
You missed your chance. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
FEATURES has been used in ebuilds for a loooong time. People were happy with |
| 20 |
it. The only reason it was not properly documented in PMS was because the |
| 21 |
authors didn't agree with it. That's not how you do a standard, but then it |
| 22 |
never was about documenting reality. Now PMS has this hole in it, and instead |
| 23 |
of (1) documenting current behaviour and (2) agreeing on a standard behaviour |
| 24 |
while (3) keeping the historical errata documented ... well, it's kinda, look |
| 25 |
over there ... *runs away* |
| 26 |
Not a way to discuss or write a standard, also making things complicated when |
| 27 |
there are known easy ways to fix it. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Like, when does this end? Whenever there's a policy you don't agree with, |
| 30 |
> you do whatever you want? And it's the policy that's the problem? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
Well, if everyone else freely ignores it and pointing out that people |
| 33 |
violating the policy has no response I'll consider that policy inactive. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
If the Gentoo developers vote with their feet I'm not going to pretend they |
| 36 |
didn't. What you can do then is document what just happened ... maybe ... |
| 37 |
optionally? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> Anyways, this has nothing to do with PMS. Using FEATURES in the tree was |
| 41 |
> frowned upon long before it even existed. The fact that it wasn't |
| 42 |
> documented as such outside of mailing lists and bug reports is the real |
| 43 |
> bug. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
And that usage was tolerated for >2 years. I still don't see what's bad about |
| 46 |
using things as they are, but if people now decide that we need to do complex |
| 47 |
dances instead of fixing things I'll just grab a camera and tape it instead of |
| 48 |
complaining. Life is too short to get worked up about such things :) |
Archives