1 |
On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 18:18:17 +0800 |
2 |
konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I should also add that a dynamic "default" that varies depending on |
5 |
> the version doesn't sound good to me. For one at least, it confuses |
6 |
> the user. |
7 |
|
8 |
I agree that its a bit unintuitive. |
9 |
|
10 |
However, the alternatives are: |
11 |
|
12 |
- A useflag that entirely goes away depending on the version |
13 |
- A useflag that is inoperative depending on the version |
14 |
|
15 |
Neither of those are improvements. |
16 |
|
17 |
And in both cases they're additionally messy as they require |
18 |
additional logic that changes what DEPEND is based on the version. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Also, do you think there could be a helpful case that one would |
21 |
> install a non-release version of bash that compiles against the system |
22 |
> readline? Perhaps if you're also brave enough to install an |
23 |
> pre-release version of readline to the system, there is. |
24 |
|
25 |
If this scenario was the expected scenario for non-rc releases, its only |
26 |
sensible that the development versions should be testing that usecase. |
27 |
|
28 |
If for example the development versions always only tested using their bundled |
29 |
readlines, and then the non-development versions always used dependencies, |
30 |
then testing is somewhat pointless. |
31 |
|
32 |
Because you're no longer testing for real world problems that would be possible |
33 |
due to using systemized dependenices.( ie: stipulating a new enough version, |
34 |
incompatibilities due to gentoo patching, etc ) |
35 |
|
36 |
"don't use external readline" would have to be the default of bash and |
37 |
everyone would have to be being encouraged to be using it that way in order |
38 |
for making the testing of that combination also a default. |
39 |
|
40 |
Otherwise you're testing a situation that will never be a reality. |