| 1 |
On 2 June 2016 at 07:33, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I prefer to have at least 5% of the ebuilds working and the other |
| 4 |
> being fixable (if their maintainers want to spend the effort) |
| 5 |
> than to remove a concept which breaks also these 5% and turns |
| 6 |
> all ebuilds non-fixable, in principle. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Changing the status-quo to "broken by default and needs 95% of the |
| 9 |
tree to change to not be broken" is a bad precedent. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Its better to have 100% of the tree *not* broken by default, and then |
| 12 |
we progressively whittle the tree into a flexible state. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
( At least, this is what I've gathered so far ) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> I'm not going to continue the discussion if you are so blinded by |
| 18 |
>> LINGUAS that you are even unable to understand what I'm talking about, |
| 19 |
>> and consistently mix the LINGUAS concept and INSTALL_MASK concept, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> ...says the man who mixes this wildly in the first posting by |
| 22 |
> suggesting to recommend the user to not use LINGUAS and use |
| 23 |
> INSTALL_MASK *instead*; as a reply to my warning to not mix |
| 24 |
> these completely unrelated concepts. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
LINGUAS affects compilation due to weird toolchains. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
INSTALL_MASK just nukes files. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Kent |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives