| 1 |
On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 3 |
> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first |
| 5 |
>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other |
| 6 |
>> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can |
| 7 |
>> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more. Is it really |
| 8 |
>> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system into |
| 9 |
>> multiple different virtuals like this? |
| 10 |
> Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody |
| 11 |
> else can think of any unintended consequences. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals |
| 14 |
was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not |
| 15 |
consulted. The question of "unintended consequences" is precisely why |
| 16 |
design decisions should be discussed on this list. The following bug |
| 17 |
shows who was invovled in the discussion: |
| 18 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=506034. (I just added the eudev |
| 19 |
team but it was not there until just now.) We now face similar design |
| 20 |
idiosyncrasies with respect to a request that ABI information be |
| 21 |
included in CHOSTs for MIPS which does not conform to gnuconfig |
| 22 |
standards. To avoid engineering ourselves into corners, we really need |
| 23 |
to have as many smart people looking at a design change as possible |
| 24 |
before it is implemented, not after. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 29 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 30 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 31 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives