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 |