| 1 |
El mié, 31-07-2013 a las 22:32 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:12 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Honestly, I don't think maintainers should be asked to justify |
| 4 |
> > features unless they're actually causing some kind of conflict. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > If Robin wants to support USE=static for lvm2, he can do so. If it |
| 7 |
> > somehow caused problems with other packages that would be a different |
| 8 |
> > matter, but I can't see how a static binary should hurt anything. If |
| 9 |
> > he wanted to drop dynamic linking support I'd also be concerned. |
| 10 |
> > However, maintainers should be free to support options even if some |
| 11 |
> > consider them a waste of time. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > If Robin wants to satisfy our idle curiosity he can do so, but let's |
| 14 |
> > not hound maintainers willing to do extra work unless they're actually |
| 15 |
> > causing problems. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The problem is when that extra work results in a flag on virtual/udev |
| 18 |
> which cannot be satisfied by some of the virtual's implementations (like |
| 19 |
> systemd) and which then leads to several screen lengths of uninformative |
| 20 |
> portage errors facing users who are upgrading to gnome-3.8. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And also forces sys-apps/udev maintainers to keep patching it to |
| 26 |
"support" static stuff on it, even when upstream don't care about it and |
| 27 |
disabled it |
Archives