1 |
On 2021-01-08 18:06, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
2 |
> I disagree with your premise: I argue that the eclass is not "broken", |
3 |
> and the code works as designed. You just don't like aspects of its |
4 |
> design. |
5 |
|
6 |
Several people, not just me... *users*, other devs like robbat2 and |
7 |
antarus, all with experience in maintaining multiple systems not just as |
8 |
a hobby, have expressed that the current design has a flaw. |
9 |
|
10 |
I got feedback from other devs representing a large group in Gentoo and |
11 |
they all agree on the problem. They haven't spoken up yet because they |
12 |
don't care because the way how they use Gentoo is stateless. |
13 |
|
14 |
So why the hell is it acceptable for a small group (you and mgorny, |
15 |
Michael told me already last year that he will be fine with an opt-in |
16 |
change and I assume his opinion hasn't changed) to cause problems for |
17 |
another group just because you don't want to acknowledge the problem? |
18 |
|
19 |
Even soap, not sure if he has spoken for himself or as QA lead, has |
20 |
acknowledged in this thread that we need a mechanism to disable this |
21 |
behavior. |
22 |
|
23 |
Is it really not possible to solve this technical problem? Do we have to |
24 |
escalate and need a vote or something to replace entire GLEP 81 with |
25 |
something new just because a group believes there is no flaw and |
26 |
everyone else having problems are doing things wrong so this group is |
27 |
rejecting any attempts to address the problem? |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Regards, |
32 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
33 |
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |