| 1 |
Zac Medico posted on Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:26:24 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 04/25/2012 11:18 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
>> IOW, let's quit letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and just |
| 5 |
>> get on with it, already. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If that means settling on something that's fragile and prone to lots of |
| 8 |
> bug reports, then it's not really practical, because it wastes peoples |
| 9 |
> time (and time is our most valuable resource). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
IMO it's trying to do too much with it that's the fragile bit. If all it |
| 12 |
does is the patching, but it /always/ does the patching (unlike the hit- |
| 13 |
and-miss we get now), and people know they need to use the overlay-ebuild |
| 14 |
method to do anything beyond patching, including if they need to re- |
| 15 |
invoke eautoreconf, then it should "just work". Right now we're talking |
| 16 |
about all this fancy stuff, detecting when we need to automatically run |
| 17 |
eautoreconf, etc, and /that/ seems to me to be the fragile bit. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Of course that's why I have preserve-libs turned off here as well. IMO |
| 20 |
it's a too complex solution to a simple problem, and cleaning up when it |
| 21 |
breaks is worse than simply dealing with the problem using current proven |
| 22 |
technology. But at least epatch-user doesn't break the modified ebuild |
| 23 |
in overlay method, like preserved-libs breaks the normal revdep-rebuild |
| 24 |
scans so they report no packages to rebuild. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 28 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 29 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives