| 1 |
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:03:28 +1000 |
| 2 |
Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > How often does this situation even come up? If 9/10 times the |
| 4 |
> > libraries are set up as maintainers expect them to be, it is |
| 5 |
> > probably better to deal with the odd unnecessary rebuild until |
| 6 |
> > somebody spots it, rather than going without support for slot |
| 7 |
> > operator deps. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> With respect, "good enough" is not a very high standard to aim for. |
| 10 |
> In my opinion, adding unnecessary subslot dependencies is no |
| 11 |
> different to adding overly-wide dependencies. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
There's a world of difference between a horrible breakage and an |
| 14 |
occasional unnecessary compile. If users are concerned about how they |
| 15 |
spend their CPU time, they're using the wrong distribution. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives