| 1 |
El mar, 06-12-2016 a las 22:15 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 12:54:26 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:13 AM, konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> |
| 7 |
> > wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Please consider promoting the use of tinfo flag in packages that |
| 10 |
> > > depend on sys-libs/ncurses so that they would synchronize |
| 11 |
> > > properly |
| 12 |
> > > with sys-libs/ncurses[tinfo]. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > I would rather see the tinfo USE flag removed from ncurses. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> vapier doesn't consider this QA violation a QA violation. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/487844 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, I think I have seen other packages with this similar behavior... |
| 22 |
perl[ithreads] I think is one of them :/ Then, I wouldn't focus this in |
| 23 |
a fight between QA violations or not :| Otherwise we will end up with |
| 24 |
endless arguments focusing on this fights instead of trying to handle |
| 25 |
the concrete issue. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I agree that this is really ugly... but probably we would need to |
| 28 |
handle each case in particular. The problem is that I don't know what |
| 29 |
is the correct approach for this case... I would think about enabling |
| 30 |
tinfo always... but probably it breaks reverse deps badly :/ Anyway, I |
| 31 |
think Fedora is enabling it always, then, it shouldn't be too hard. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
What people from base-system think about this? What is the advantage of |
| 34 |
allowing people to switch this behavior? |
Archives