| 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 |
Archives