Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: desultory <desultory@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] xorg-2.eclass: Remove use of prune_libtool_files
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:51:55
Message-Id: e6ecd33c-664d-3b9a-d259-a4a20695114e@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] xorg-2.eclass: Remove use of prune_libtool_files by Matt Turner
1 On 02/24/19 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
2 > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:30 PM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote:
3 >>
4 >> On 02/20/19 02:36, Michał Górny wrote:
5 >>> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
6 >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
7 >>>>
8 >>>>
9 >>>>> # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules)
10 >>>>> - prune_libtool_files --all
11 >>>>> + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die
12 >>>>
13 >>>> Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"?
14 >>>
15 >>> I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that
16 >>> 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going to
17 >>> see many packages installing '*.la' non-files.
18 >>>
19 >> Just so we are all clear here: your argument is that more fully correct
20 >> approaches should not be considered in the present and future because
21 >> less fully correct approaches were implemented in the past? And,
22 >> further, that since nothing matching a specific pattern happens to come
23 >> to your mind at he moment, such things do not exist? Perhaps dialing
24 >> back the rhetoric from 11 and considering feedback as an opportunity to
25 >> improve existing code is called for in this case, among others.
26 >
27 > I think you might be reading more into this than was intended.
28 >
29 I am reading into it what was written into it.
30
31 > I read his email as lamenting that the horse has left the barn, so to
32 > speak.
33 Since we are going with animal husbandry analogies, his specific manner
34 of rejecting feedback was more akin to leaving the barn door open,
35 letting the horse go play in traffic and ignoring that there is no real
36 reason to believe that the horse will not be killed by a vehicle on the
37 basis of it has only been hit a few times and has not yet succumbed to
38 its injuries.
39
40 > There are already hundreds of uses of find -name '*.la' -delete
41 > without -type f in the tree, probably in large part because
42 > ltprune.eclass suggests the form without it.
43 >
44 Which, following the animal husbandry theme brings us to the elephant in
45 the room [1]:
46 "
47 # @MAINTAINER:
48 # Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
49 "
50 Given that another developer has noted two different issues with the
51 suggested boilerplate [2][3], why has he, as a member of QA and as
52 maintainer of the eclass in question, rejected or simply ignored their
53 concerns? He would not even need to override another maintainer to fix a
54 *comment* in that eclass. Is asking for rationale somehow that much of a
55 problem?
56
57 > Suggesting dialing down the rhetoric when it appears that you have
58 > overreacted is a bit humorous.
59 >
60 Given his behavior, it hardly seems so to me.
61
62 >
63
64 [1] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/plain/eclass/ltprune.eclass
65 [2]
66 https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/d528ab54d230afc11430ea9660c7feaa
67 [3]
68 https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/539b9ba7d4b21086bc2ba3b8d11dacdb