Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Rename PORT_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} variables to PORTAGE_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} Bug 668538
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:54:14
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Rename PORT_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} variables to PORTAGE_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} Bug 668538 by "M. J. Everitt"
1 On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 05:12 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote:
2 > On 15/12/18 08:55, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > > On Sat, 2018-12-15 at 02:25 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote:
4 > > > This patchset aims to fix potential ambiguity and confusion between older PORT_LOG* variables,
5 > > > and more recent PORTAGE_* variables - often leading to mysteriously lacking logging due to
6 > > > incorrect variable names. Documented in Bug 668538; with thanks to Zac for diagnosis, and
7 > > > solution assistance!
8 > > >
9 > >
10 > > Does 'often' actually affect more than one person? Do you have any
11 > > evidence to support this?
12 > >
13 > > Given that a lot of Portage variables don't have any prefix or sane
14 > > names, I dare say this one doesn't especially stand out.
15 > >
16 >
17 > Just a thought, but how about you apply your skill and wisdom to reviewing
18 > the patches, instead of wasting it on writing snide replies?
19 > Quite radical I know, but whadda ya think?!
21 You didn't answer my question. However, given the level of aggression
22 in your reply, I'm going to presume I've caught you on a blatant lie
23 and that this problem affects exactly one person, yourself, and you are
24 making an unnecessary change to bend the world to your mistake.
26 > As it happens, I was going for consistency here, as that often reflects
27 > code quality, and you being a keen QA member, I'da thought perhaps you
28 > might have spotted this!
30 Are you? Do you have any evidence to support that? Because as far as I
31 can see (and it's even quite visible in your patch), none of
32 the variables in the group with 'PORT_LOGDIR' in it use 'PORTAGE_'
33 prefix. So are you improving consistency in variable naming, or are you
34 replacing one inconsistency with another?
36 > Not only this, but as noted, unless you know the man pages for portage and
37 > make.conf in order to recite them in your sleep, they are confusing for
38 > users, as they do not necessarily follow an obvious pattern, and it wasn't
39 > until I was attempting to debug something that I noticed that despite
40 > believing I had the correct settings in my make.conf (set over a period of
41 > YEARS) they were in fact completely useless, and it wasn't until I had to
42 > spend time with somebody debugging WTF was happening, that this particular
43 > issue even became apparent...
45 I don't see how this is an argument for anything. You have to read
46 the manual in order to know that such variable exists and what it does.
47 Or, well, technically you don't since it's provided in make.conf.example
48 already where you only need to uncomment it.
50 Either way, the variable name is trivial. Even if you don't follow
51 the usual pattern of uncommenting it from make.conf.example or copying
52 from the manual, remembering it for the time needed to retype shoudln't
53 be a problem.
55 So, is this a solution to a real problem? Or is it merely a half-
56 thought-out partial change that's going to require people to update
57 their configuration for no long-term benefit? And then they will have
58 to update it again when someone decides to take another variable for
59 a spin.
61 --
62 Best regards,
63 Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature