| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:30 PM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 02/20/19 02:36, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >>> # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules) |
| 9 |
> >>> - prune_libtool_files --all |
| 10 |
> >>> + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that |
| 15 |
> > 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going to |
| 16 |
> > see many packages installing '*.la' non-files. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> Just so we are all clear here: your argument is that more fully correct |
| 19 |
> approaches should not be considered in the present and future because |
| 20 |
> less fully correct approaches were implemented in the past? And, |
| 21 |
> further, that since nothing matching a specific pattern happens to come |
| 22 |
> to your mind at he moment, such things do not exist? Perhaps dialing |
| 23 |
> back the rhetoric from 11 and considering feedback as an opportunity to |
| 24 |
> improve existing code is called for in this case, among others. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I think you might be reading more into this than was intended. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I read his email as lamenting that the horse has left the barn, so to |
| 29 |
speak. There are already hundreds of uses of find -name '*.la' -delete |
| 30 |
without -type f in the tree, probably in large part because |
| 31 |
ltprune.eclass suggests the form without it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Suggesting dialing down the rhetoric when it appears that you have |
| 34 |
overreacted is a bit humorous. |
Archives