Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Rename PORT_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} variables to PORTAGE_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} Bug 668538

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 21:09 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:51 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 15:44 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > > On 17/12/18 12:54, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > Not only this, but as noted, unless you know the man pages for
> >
> > portage and
> > > > > make.conf in order to recite them in your sleep, they are confusing
> >
> > for
> > > > > users, as they do not necessarily follow an obvious pattern, and it
> >
> > wasn't
> > > > > until I was attempting to debug something that I noticed that despite
> > > > > believing I had the correct settings in my make.conf (set over a
> >
> > period of
> > > > > YEARS) they were in fact completely useless, and it wasn't until I
> >
> > had to
> > > > > spend time with somebody debugging WTF was happening, that this
> >
> > particular
> > > > > issue even became apparent...
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how this is an argument for anything.  You have to read
> > > > the manual in order to know that such variable exists and what it
> >
> > does.
> > > > Or, well, technically you don't since it's provided in
> >
> > make.conf.example
> > > > already where you only need to uncomment it.
> > > >
> > > > Either way, the variable name is trivial.  Even if you don't follow
> > > > the usual pattern of uncommenting it from make.conf.example or copying
> > > > from the manual, remembering it for the time needed to retype shoudln't
> > > > be a problem.
> > > >
> > > > So, is this a solution to a real problem?  Or is it merely a half-
> > > > thought-out partial change that's going to require people to update
> > > > their configuration for no long-term benefit?  And then they will have
> > > > to update it again when someone decides to take another variable for
> > > > a spin.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In the case you hadn't noticed, clearly you haven't .. the change is
> > > backwards compatible.. that has already been thought out.
> > >
> > > But you haven't actually looked at the patch have you, Michal ?
> > >
> >
> > I did look at it.  However, that doesn't change what I said.  Being
> > 'backwards compatible' does not change the fact that the old variable
> > becomes deprecated now.  Ergo, users are expected to eventually switch
> > to the new one.
> >
>
> So if we rewrote the patches to not deprecate the old one but to support
> both; how would that strike you?
>

As a horrible idea, violating SPOT rule?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny