Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Cc: qa@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:49:31
Message-Id: 20191027184924.GA11372@linux1.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from / by "Michał Górny"
1 On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
3 > > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
4 > > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
5 > >
6 >
7 > The hacks aren't 'unnecessary'. There is a very good reason that files
8 > that are used *purely at build time* don't land in /. That reason is
9 > disk space. Even if people nowadays are forced to use initramfs with
10 > separate /usr, it doesn't mean you should just let their rootfs fill up
11 > with useless files.
13 The useless files argument really holds no water with me. We install
14 many files on / that are useless in one situation or another.
15 Some examples are logrotate files when logrotate isn't installed,
16 systemd units for openrc systems and openrc init scripts for systemd
17 systems.
19 Talk to me about useless files on / after we put all of these, and
20 possibly others I can't think of, behind use flags.
22 > Do you have any *real* argument? Because 'unnecessary hack' is
23 > basically your feeling of ebuild aesthetics. My aesthetics is more
24 > worried about useless clutter in /lib*. FHS agrees with me, as you
25 > yourself admitted yesterday.
27 Any downstream hack means that we are being lazy and not reporting the
28 bug upstream and asking them to fix it.
30 This particular issue is not a big deal to any other distro and has
31 never been. Shouldn't we try to get upstreams to do this if it is so
32 important?
34 > So why do you believe we should introduce this regression? And why are
35 > you trying to sneak it past most of the developers via gentoo-portage-
36 > dev instead of gentoo-dev?
38 This attack is un called for. This list is as open as any other,
39 and there is no need for you to make this out to be some kind of
40 conspiracy theory to "sneak" something past the developers.
42 William


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