| 1 |
On 12/17/18 7:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 15:44 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 17/12/18 12:54, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> Not only this, but as noted, unless you know the man pages for portage and |
| 5 |
>>>> make.conf in order to recite them in your sleep, they are confusing for |
| 6 |
>>>> users, as they do not necessarily follow an obvious pattern, and it wasn't |
| 7 |
>>>> until I was attempting to debug something that I noticed that despite |
| 8 |
>>>> believing I had the correct settings in my make.conf (set over a period of |
| 9 |
>>>> YEARS) they were in fact completely useless, and it wasn't until I had to |
| 10 |
>>>> spend time with somebody debugging WTF was happening, that this particular |
| 11 |
>>>> issue even became apparent... |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> I don't see how this is an argument for anything. You have to read |
| 14 |
>>> the manual in order to know that such variable exists and what it does. |
| 15 |
>>> Or, well, technically you don't since it's provided in make.conf.example |
| 16 |
>>> already where you only need to uncomment it. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> Either way, the variable name is trivial. Even if you don't follow |
| 19 |
>>> the usual pattern of uncommenting it from make.conf.example or copying |
| 20 |
>>> from the manual, remembering it for the time needed to retype shoudln't |
| 21 |
>>> be a problem. |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> So, is this a solution to a real problem? Or is it merely a half- |
| 24 |
>>> thought-out partial change that's going to require people to update |
| 25 |
>>> their configuration for no long-term benefit? And then they will have |
| 26 |
>>> to update it again when someone decides to take another variable for |
| 27 |
>>> a spin. |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> In the case you hadn't noticed, clearly you haven't .. the change is |
| 31 |
>> backwards compatible.. that has already been thought out. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> But you haven't actually looked at the patch have you, Michal ? |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> I did look at it. However, that doesn't change what I said. Being |
| 37 |
> 'backwards compatible' does not change the fact that the old variable |
| 38 |
> becomes deprecated now. Ergo, users are expected to eventually switch |
| 39 |
> to the new one. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Even if you don't care beyond changing this now and forgetting about it |
| 42 |
> afterwards, someone eventually will have to clean up the old variable |
| 43 |
> and actively force people to update. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Let's comment out the UserWarning message for now, and we can enable it |
| 46 |
at some point in the future when people have forgotten that PORT_LOGDIR |
| 47 |
was a thing. |
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Thanks, |
| 50 |
Zac |
Archives