| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use |
| 4 |
> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
How is this a quality issue? Why do we have a static-libs USE flag is |
| 7 |
packages can't use it to determine whether the package installs static |
| 8 |
libs? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It seems like this is only a "quality" issue in some aesthetic sense |
| 11 |
of the word. From an end-user point of view not installing the files |
| 12 |
or not building them are the same thing, unless you're talking about |
| 13 |
CPU time and tmp space usage. Now, if the time to build those files |
| 14 |
was actually significant then I could see an argument here, although |
| 15 |
you haven't actually proposed an alternative that addresses this. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This doesn't really impact me much personally, but it just seems like |
| 18 |
we nitpick stuff like this way too much when the goal should be things |
| 19 |
that work. By all means improve on things, but we shouldn't just be |
| 20 |
reverting them. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Now, if in the course of making a minor change like this the committer |
| 23 |
also rewrote half the ebuild which is something the maintainer has to |
| 24 |
deal with that a fly-by-night visitor doesn't then I could see more of |
| 25 |
an issue. I don't really see this as creating any kind of maintenance |
| 26 |
burden. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives