| 1 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:32:30 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being |
| 6 |
> > > unable to test with one and the other co-installed? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Did you see the comment where portage has this function now? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I don't actually know what he's referring to specifically, so I |
| 11 |
> couldn't say. My best guess is something to do with "--prefix" but not |
| 12 |
> sure. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Don't guess or assume, both are bad. |
| 15 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/ |
| 16 |
4c8ab9209699e278876dfa9f11c8f1c6 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > > What are the benefits. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Knowing what you are getting in seconds, made by whom. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Would you similarly want the name of the last gentoo developer who |
| 23 |
> touched the ebuild in the atom? No? Why not? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That is irrelevant, is it from Upstream or Gentoo, it is a binary choice. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > > If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but the Gentoo |
| 28 |
> > > one sucks, we should just abolish the Gentoo one. |
| 29 |
> > > |
| 30 |
> > > If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but upstreams |
| 31 |
> > > sucks, then we should not ship the upstream version. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > What if you simply just do not know who made the binary? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Then the realisation that "not everyone cares" happens, and you go "ok, |
| 36 |
> I care, so I have to spend effort to care". |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Or you make improper assumptions. I bet many merged firefox-bin, just not |
| 39 |
wanting to merge from source to save time. Assuming they were getting the |
| 40 |
same, not realizing they were getting an Official binary from upstream not one |
| 41 |
built from a Gentoo firefox package. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Or we're going to find ourselves back debating the old "Eapi in ebuild |
| 44 |
> filename" debate, except worse, we'd be wanting EAPI visible in the |
| 45 |
> ATOM! |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
This is not a as wide scoped a EAPI, and effects a very small percentage of |
| 48 |
ebuilds in tree. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> There's a lot of "but what if you care!??!" things, perhaps this may be |
| 51 |
> an important one to you, but some people care a lot about LICENSE and |
| 52 |
> some people just don't. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Yes, and some care about what repo it comes from. Which is why portage now |
| 55 |
shows you what repo it comes from as part of merge output. This is really no |
| 56 |
different. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives