| 1 |
On Mar 31, 2012 12:57 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh" <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 |
| 5 |
> Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it |
| 7 |
> > should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production |
| 8 |
> > boxes for years without any issues :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it |
| 11 |
> break" means "it works". |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that matter) is |
| 14 |
> that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it might break, so |
| 15 |
> I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those, but in general I |
| 16 |
> can't think of what other problems there are so it's fine". That's a |
| 17 |
> bad way of doing things. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> -- |
| 20 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
No. I didn't say I think it works, I said I have proof it works. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You can argue about the implementation details all you want and it'll still |
| 25 |
work. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If you can make it better then, by all means, send a patch. Otherwise stop |
| 28 |
spreading false FUD, please. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Thanks :) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Alex | wired |
Archives