| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > On 9/10/18 10:51 PM, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built |
| 7 |
> > > this configuration. None of the arch teams had built this |
| 8 |
> > > configuration until I did for the last architecture Cc'd. The patch |
| 9 |
> > > committed doesn't change anything installed on the system, if not for |
| 10 |
> > > Werror preventing the code from building. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > one way to look at it though, is that it is a valuable upstream |
| 13 |
> > contribution that this configuration produces the error, so Gentoo is |
| 14 |
> > contributing to upstream development because of it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> As an end user of Gentoo, I may not care about "contributing to |
| 17 |
> upstream"; I just want the software to compile and install. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For more critical packages (like the example of zfs) whether it |
| 21 |
compiles and installs isn't 1/10th as important as whether it eats my |
| 22 |
data... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives