| 1 |
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2 June 2016 at 07:33, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I prefer to have at least 5% of the ebuilds working and the other |
| 5 |
>> being fixable (if their maintainers want to spend the effort) |
| 6 |
>> than to remove a concept which breaks also these 5% and turns |
| 7 |
>> all ebuilds non-fixable, in principle. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Changing the status-quo to "broken by default and needs 95% of the |
| 10 |
> tree to change to not be broken" is a bad precedent. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
What you describe _is_ the status-quo. The 95% are broken and |
| 13 |
remain broken (unless a lot of work is spent), no matter which |
| 14 |
of the suggested solutions is chosen. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I am voting to *keep* better this than to change the status-quo |
| 17 |
by breaking the 5% working percent, too: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
mgorny's suggestion to kill l10n.eclass (or, more abstractly |
| 20 |
speaking, to forbid setting LINGUAS based in USE-flags within |
| 21 |
an ebuild) just influences the 5% of ebuilds which are |
| 22 |
currently using this mechanism and thus are non-broken |
| 23 |
(if their IUSE is correctly maintained). |
| 24 |
Removing l10n.eclass would throw these 5% back to the broken |
| 25 |
state of the other 95%, and even forbid by policy that any |
| 26 |
other would be fixed. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I really cannot see an advantage in doing this, except for |
| 29 |
some irrational feeling of "consistency" to have everything |
| 30 |
equally broken. |
Archives