| 1 |
Alec Warner posted on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:45:51 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The portion that is not clear to me is why there is so much animosity |
| 4 |
> against a var to enable .la files. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> [I trust the technical decision, but] when someone makes a statement |
| 7 |
> like 'removing .la files will not break anything' [I get nervous.] I |
| 8 |
> don't think any one person can make statements like that. [The] risk is |
| 9 |
> [too] difficult to quantify [like that]. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Because of the above, adding a toggle to roll back the change seems like |
| 12 |
> a reasonable request. If the idea is to add a remove_la_files type |
| 13 |
> function to eutils then the toggle can be added in a centralized place. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The work to add a rollback trigger is all of 5 lines of bash; |
| 16 |
> so why would we avoid adding it? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
++ |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This is what I've been saying. Centralizing it is a good idea anyway, |
| 21 |
and once that's done, a control var is trivial. Even if those objecting |
| 22 |
to systemic removal don't know what they're talking about, instituting |
| 23 |
this one trivial control var pretty well eliminates the opposition, and |
| 24 |
because implementation of such a control var /is/ trivial, doing it simply |
| 25 |
to eliminate the politics would seem the sensible thing. We've already |
| 26 |
spent more time arguing about it than it'd take to implement the control |
| 27 |
var, and potentially enough to have it well documented as well! =:^\ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives