1 |
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 19:10 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
2 |
> On 2021-01-08 18:06, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
3 |
> > I disagree with your premise: I argue that the eclass is not "broken", |
4 |
> > and the code works as designed. You just don't like aspects of its |
5 |
> > design. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Several people, not just me... *users*, other devs like robbat2 and |
8 |
> antarus, all with experience in maintaining multiple systems not just as |
9 |
> a hobby, have expressed that the current design has a flaw. |
10 |
|
11 |
They did. What you're neglecting to repeat is that they've also |
12 |
indicated that your proposed design is flawed as well. You're |
13 |
conflating 'design A is flawed' into 'design B is better', while they |
14 |
really said 'both design A and B are flawed'. |
15 |
|
16 |
> I got feedback from other devs representing a large group in Gentoo and |
17 |
> they all agree on the problem. They haven't spoken up yet because they |
18 |
> don't care because the way how they use Gentoo is stateless. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> So why the hell is it acceptable for a small group (you and mgorny, |
21 |
> Michael told me already last year that he will be fine with an opt-in |
22 |
> change and I assume his opinion hasn't changed) to cause problems for |
23 |
> another group just because you don't want to acknowledge the problem? |
24 |
|
25 |
So what's you're basically saying is that there are people who like |
26 |
behavior A, people who like behavior B and people who don't care. |
27 |
Somehow you manage -- without any hard evidence -- to claim that people |
28 |
who dislike the current behavior are more numerous than the people who |
29 |
like the current behavior, and also implicitly count people who don't |
30 |
care towards them (why?). Even if you managed to prove that (how?), is |
31 |
this really a popularity contest? |
32 |
|
33 |
The current behavior has been the default for 1.5 years. There are |
34 |
ebuilds that literally depend on it. If you are going to change that, |
35 |
then you need to prove that 1) your proposed solution is much better for |
36 |
the vast majority of Gentoo users (again, how?), and 2) that the benefit |
37 |
from the change in behavior outweighs its costs. And given that you've |
38 |
pretty much admitted that the majority probably 'does not care', then 2) |
39 |
is not met. |
40 |
|
41 |
> Even soap, not sure if he has spoken for himself or as QA lead, has |
42 |
> acknowledged in this thread that we need a mechanism to disable this |
43 |
> behavior. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Is it really not possible to solve this technical problem? Do we have to |
46 |
> escalate and need a vote or something to replace entire GLEP 81 with |
47 |
> something new just because a group believes there is no flaw and |
48 |
> everyone else having problems are doing things wrong so this group is |
49 |
> rejecting any attempts to address the problem? |
50 |
|
51 |
Again, I don't understand why you continue escalating this. I have |
52 |
already indicated that I'm fine with adding an option to disable this, |
53 |
given that 1) the current behavior remains the default, and 2) people |
54 |
are given big fat warning that they are now responsible for updating |
55 |
their users (and ideally 3) the eclass tells user how to update |
56 |
the user). I've just asked for the option to override values via |
57 |
make.conf goes first since that is the preferred solution that doesn't |
58 |
destroy the foundations of GLEP 81. |
59 |
|
60 |
floppym has indicated an interest in this, so I've presumed he's going |
61 |
to submit an updated patch to the ml. |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
Best regards, |
66 |
Michał Górny |