Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] xorg-2.eclass: Remove use of prune_libtool_files

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2019-02-23 at 22:19 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:30 PM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/20/19 02:36, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >     # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules)
> > > > > -   prune_libtool_files --all
> > > > > +   find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die
> > > >
> > > > Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"?
> > >
> > > I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that
> > > 'find' line all over the place.  Though I honestly doubt we're going to
> > > see many packages installing '*.la' non-files.
> > >
> >
> > Just so we are all clear here: your argument is that more fully correct
> > approaches should not be considered in the present and future because
> > less fully correct approaches were implemented in the past? And,
> > further, that since nothing matching a specific pattern happens to come
> > to your mind at he moment, such things do not exist? Perhaps dialing
> > back the rhetoric from 11 and considering feedback as an opportunity to
> > improve existing code is called for in this case, among others.
>
> I think you might be reading more into this than was intended.
>
> I read his email as lamenting that the horse has left the barn, so to
> speak. There are already hundreds of uses of find -name '*.la' -delete
> without -type f in the tree, probably in large part because
> ltprune.eclass suggests the form without it.
>
> Suggesting dialing down the rhetoric when it appears that you have
> overreacted is a bit humorous.
>

He simply decided to stalk me and issue ad hominem attacks whenever he
can.  It's how professionals in Gentoo react to critique.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny