1 |
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:31 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > On 9/10/18 10:51 PM, Matt Turner wrote: |
8 |
> > > > Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built |
9 |
> > > > this configuration. None of the arch teams had built this |
10 |
> > > > configuration until I did for the last architecture Cc'd. The patch |
11 |
> > > > committed doesn't change anything installed on the system, if not for |
12 |
> > > > Werror preventing the code from building. |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > one way to look at it though, is that it is a valuable upstream |
15 |
> > > contribution that this configuration produces the error, so Gentoo is |
16 |
> > > contributing to upstream development because of it. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > As an end user of Gentoo, I may not care about "contributing to |
19 |
> > upstream"; I just want the software to compile and install. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> |
22 |
> For more critical packages (like the example of zfs) whether it |
23 |
> compiles and installs isn't 1/10th as important as whether it eats my |
24 |
> data... |
25 |
|
26 |
I was clearly responding to the "contributing upstream" argument, |
27 |
which has nothing to do with eating data. |