| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
lo, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 17:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
> | That is surely a "cost" people have for upgrading an application and |
| 8 |
> | have implicitly accepted by doing so. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Not really. There's a basic cost of installing or upgrading an |
| 11 |
> application, but there's also additional cost that comes from optional |
| 12 |
> extras. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Surely that so long as it is "optional" then that is implicitly accepted |
| 15 |
if they chose to use it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Noooooo! Not the cost from using a sucky filesystem. The cost from your |
| 18 |
> application of choice having to parse all those files. Bash is a good |
| 19 |
> example -- it's not particularly fast (read: very slow) at parsing |
| 20 |
> scripts, and if you have a zillion bash completion scripts installed |
| 21 |
> then something as simple as starting a terminal can take a very long |
| 22 |
> time. It's precisely this that lead to bash-completion-config. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This sounds like something particular to your configuration and usage |
| 25 |
rather then a problem for everyone. I'll accept that more files will |
| 26 |
equate to some performance hit, but not something that most people will |
| 27 |
be seriously impacted by. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Sure, packages are expected to work after installation. Does providing |
| 30 |
> a cron entry count as part of working? Not for some packages. Does |
| 31 |
> installing a bash completion entry count as part of working? Not for |
| 32 |
> most packages. No-one (sane, anyway) is opposed to decent default |
| 33 |
> config files going into /etc automatically where such a thing is |
| 34 |
> possible. The question is how to handle the high cost extras. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Thats precisely my point (well the other part of the point was that there |
| 37 |
are a lot of ebuilds that are NOT working after an emerge and they |
| 38 |
should)! I want to see a consistant way of handling the extras. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> | and here is the nature of the problem imho. Currently everyone is |
| 41 |
> | making these educated decisions and it means there is no coherency at |
| 42 |
> | all. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Nooooo! The educated decisions include "how everyone else is handling |
| 45 |
> the issue". |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Thats the thing, everyone is not handling the issue in the same manner. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> Hah, I tried that with devmanual. The problem is, the worst offenders |
| 50 |
> for doing perverse things in ebuilds are the same ones who won't accept |
| 51 |
> any documentation that isn't official and marked mandatory and who will |
| 52 |
> block any documentation of existing practice from becoming policy |
| 53 |
> because it isn't policy. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Thats where I want to go with this, get agreement, get it "ratified", make |
| 56 |
it policy and start enforcing it. Policies after all, should come into |
| 57 |
existance to help achieve something, not as a hinderance. I'm only |
| 58 |
pushing this because I think having a policy on this matter WOULD make |
| 59 |
things better for everyone. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
- -- |
| 62 |
Benjamin Smee (strerror) |
| 63 |
crypto/forensics/netmail/netmon |
| 64 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 65 |
Version: GnuPG v1.9.20 (GNU/Linux) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
iD8DBQFD4JB4AEpm7USL54wRAidsAJ0dqYc9yvhpqyzujBLLlVoMaUlM+wCfVwWR |
| 68 |
pQPf8np5sCPeJaNmaEr8i5w= |
| 69 |
=6wuc |
| 70 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives