| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:51 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 15:44 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 17/12/18 12:54, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Not only this, but as noted, unless you know the man pages for |
| 6 |
> portage and |
| 7 |
> > > > make.conf in order to recite them in your sleep, they are confusing |
| 8 |
> for |
| 9 |
> > > > users, as they do not necessarily follow an obvious pattern, and it |
| 10 |
> wasn't |
| 11 |
> > > > until I was attempting to debug something that I noticed that despite |
| 12 |
> > > > believing I had the correct settings in my make.conf (set over a |
| 13 |
> period of |
| 14 |
> > > > YEARS) they were in fact completely useless, and it wasn't until I |
| 15 |
> had to |
| 16 |
> > > > spend time with somebody debugging WTF was happening, that this |
| 17 |
> particular |
| 18 |
> > > > issue even became apparent... |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > I don't see how this is an argument for anything. You have to read |
| 21 |
> > > the manual in order to know that such variable exists and what it |
| 22 |
> does. |
| 23 |
> > > Or, well, technically you don't since it's provided in |
| 24 |
> make.conf.example |
| 25 |
> > > already where you only need to uncomment it. |
| 26 |
> > > |
| 27 |
> > > Either way, the variable name is trivial. Even if you don't follow |
| 28 |
> > > the usual pattern of uncommenting it from make.conf.example or copying |
| 29 |
> > > from the manual, remembering it for the time needed to retype shoudln't |
| 30 |
> > > be a problem. |
| 31 |
> > > |
| 32 |
> > > So, is this a solution to a real problem? Or is it merely a half- |
| 33 |
> > > thought-out partial change that's going to require people to update |
| 34 |
> > > their configuration for no long-term benefit? And then they will have |
| 35 |
> > > to update it again when someone decides to take another variable for |
| 36 |
> > > a spin. |
| 37 |
> > > |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > In the case you hadn't noticed, clearly you haven't .. the change is |
| 40 |
> > backwards compatible.. that has already been thought out. |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > But you haven't actually looked at the patch have you, Michal ? |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> I did look at it. However, that doesn't change what I said. Being |
| 46 |
> 'backwards compatible' does not change the fact that the old variable |
| 47 |
> becomes deprecated now. Ergo, users are expected to eventually switch |
| 48 |
> to the new one. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
So if we rewrote the patches to not deprecate the old one but to support |
| 52 |
both; how would that strike you? |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-A |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Even if you don't care beyond changing this now and forgetting about it |
| 59 |
> afterwards, someone eventually will have to clean up the old variable |
| 60 |
> and actively force people to update. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> -- |
| 64 |
> Best regards, |
| 65 |
> Michał Górny |
| 66 |
> |
Archives