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