1 |
Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: |
2 |
> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly |
3 |
> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's |
4 |
> unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who |
5 |
> want to get work done, not baby-sit their system. |
6 |
|
7 |
Seriously, how many times do you re-install packages out of binpkgs on a |
8 |
_build_ system? I'll be honest: for me it's never. I reinstall them |
9 |
often on a _production_ system, but there, I mostly have INSTALL_MASK |
10 |
on .la files because _I don't build on those_. And in that situation, |
11 |
there is no breakage to begin with. |
12 |
|
13 |
> Having said that, I was informed off-list that this is not meant to be |
14 |
> *the* solution for la file removal breakage, but merely an informative |
15 |
> notice to raise awareness for the (oft-useful) hammer that is |
16 |
> lafilefixer. |
17 |
|
18 |
Which is going to cover their bases. *The* solution is to keep removing |
19 |
(in ~arch) everything else, and get it merged back into stable with |
20 |
time, which means that anything introduced _now_ should be stabled not |
21 |
before Portage 2.1.9.x is stabled, or can be a security stable; in that |
22 |
case users with lafilefixer set up will not even see it happening. |
23 |
|
24 |
> I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase |
25 |
> your objections with what I said in a way I can understand so that I |
26 |
> can address them? |
27 |
|
28 |
I'm pretty sure I did that before, otherwise you might ask Remi, as he |
29 |
probably have more patience than me on the matter and is up-to-date with |
30 |
the situation last I knew. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” |
36 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
37 |
|
38 |
If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, |
39 |
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ |