1 |
Wulf C. Krueger wrote: |
2 |
> Hello! |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but |
5 |
> since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on |
6 |
> our users I'm mailing this... |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
Have we not learn't! I hardly think that revdep-rebuild is an obvious |
10 |
solution to this issue. So now we have doomed our users ( and some of |
11 |
our dev's ) to having to search for a solution. I note that within the |
12 |
ebuild there isn't even a elog explaining what to do. If we are going |
13 |
to make changes like this we need to provide an effective "news service". |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm sure this was one of the issues that arose during the "hot house |
16 |
months". |
17 |
|
18 |
I actually find this incident rather depressing. especially after we |
19 |
(seem to) have done so well with the baselayout/openrc migration. ( I do |
20 |
realise that one is significantly bigger than the other and therefore |
21 |
requires a bigger "fan fair" ). |
22 |
|
23 |
> flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently: |
24 |
> |
25 |
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files |
26 |
|
27 |
Im sure everyone will find that |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
> Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting |
31 |
> in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes. |
32 |
> |
33 |
|
34 |
What a surprise. never could have guessed. |
35 |
|
36 |
> This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots |
37 |
> of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is |
38 |
> really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures. |
39 |
|
40 |
++. We sure do like to annoy our users. |
41 |
|
42 |
> |
43 |
> Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through |
44 |
> unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change. |
45 |
> |
46 |
|
47 |
++. I actually have no problem with agreeing with it, currently my |
48 |
problem is the complete and utter lack of any _planned_ upgrade path. |
49 |
What do we think users are going to be saying at the end of the year |
50 |
when after every sync they have to revdep-rebuild. Maybe, if we proceed |
51 |
with this, we investigate what can have its la files removed and do it |
52 |
all in one go. therefore ppl won't have to rebuild kde/gnome ( or any |
53 |
other large and time consuming package) over and over and over and over |
54 |
and over and over ....... again. Hell it would even be better to |
55 |
"batch" a few conversions so that each revdep-rebuild fixes multiple |
56 |
breakages in one. |
57 |
|
58 |
> Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with |
59 |
> exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it |
60 |
> distribution-wide or not at all. |
61 |
> |
62 |
++++++ |
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |