| 1 |
On 21/11/19 21:53, Dennis Schridde wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 09:11:46 CET Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 3 |
>> See also this related old thread: |
| 4 |
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/e04f6d321e424a237af62721d1d09 |
| 5 |
>> 211 |
| 6 |
> I think tackling the triad of opengl/gles, egl/glx, X/wayland is also a good |
| 7 |
> idea. Generally, all these probably have to distinguish between "support for |
| 8 |
> XYZ" and "use only XYZ", the latter hopefully being the exception, so that the |
| 9 |
> former can take the shorter use-flag. That's what I don't like about the |
| 10 |
> proposal from 2018: Globally enabling USE=gles will have different effects on |
| 11 |
> different packages. That's also what I like about the recent proposal: The |
| 12 |
> flags are more explicit. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> --Dennis |
| 15 |
I don't think the problem is so much in the principle of making a change, |
| 16 |
or even the specifics of any particular permutation of change, it's who |
| 17 |
gets to manage and implement the change in a maintainable fashion, and who |
| 18 |
has to deal with the fallout of any changes occurring where a particular |
| 19 |
scenario 'slips through the net'.... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you can convince the latter people that there is no problem arising from |
| 22 |
making said changes, and you ensure that there genuinely *is* minimal |
| 23 |
impact (by whatever means) then you stand a much better chance of this |
| 24 |
change actually being implemented .. |
Archives