| 1 |
On 17/12/18 12:54, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Not only this, but as noted, unless you know the man pages for portage and |
| 3 |
>> make.conf in order to recite them in your sleep, they are confusing for |
| 4 |
>> users, as they do not necessarily follow an obvious pattern, and it wasn't |
| 5 |
>> until I was attempting to debug something that I noticed that despite |
| 6 |
>> believing I had the correct settings in my make.conf (set over a period of |
| 7 |
>> YEARS) they were in fact completely useless, and it wasn't until I had to |
| 8 |
>> spend time with somebody debugging WTF was happening, that this particular |
| 9 |
>> issue even became apparent... |
| 10 |
> I don't see how this is an argument for anything. You have to read |
| 11 |
> the manual in order to know that such variable exists and what it does. |
| 12 |
> Or, well, technically you don't since it's provided in make.conf.example |
| 13 |
> already where you only need to uncomment it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Either way, the variable name is trivial. Even if you don't follow |
| 16 |
> the usual pattern of uncommenting it from make.conf.example or copying |
| 17 |
> from the manual, remembering it for the time needed to retype shoudln't |
| 18 |
> be a problem. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> So, is this a solution to a real problem? Or is it merely a half- |
| 21 |
> thought-out partial change that's going to require people to update |
| 22 |
> their configuration for no long-term benefit? And then they will have |
| 23 |
> to update it again when someone decides to take another variable for |
| 24 |
> a spin. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
In the case you hadn't noticed, clearly you haven't .. the change is |
| 27 |
backwards compatible.. that has already been thought out. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
But you haven't actually looked at the patch have you, Michal ? |
Archives