| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:43 on Thursday 18 November 2010, Walter |
| 2 |
Dnes did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:00:48AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > If you then mentioned that their defaults broke Dale's setup, they'd |
| 7 |
> > likely answer "Who's Dale?" followed shortly by "None of us have |
| 8 |
> > hardware like Dale to test. Sorry 'bout that. Set USE=-hal" |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Of course the USE flag advice is given *AFTER* the new flag breaks |
| 11 |
> your system. That's why I use "-*" at the beginning of my USE in |
| 12 |
> /etc/make.conf. I never found out whether hal would break my system<G>. |
| 13 |
> If Dale had used "-*" his X would not have broken, even if some other |
| 14 |
> ebuild pulled it onto the machine as a hard-coded dependancy. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Looks like the *actual* problem is non-application of OYFEAL[1],not what the |
| 17 |
devs do. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Dale should have seen a new package being installed - an "N" inside "[ ]", |
| 20 |
should have seen new flags highlighted in colour, and should have decided. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If he decided to go without hal, nothing would have changed for him. |
| 23 |
He decided to go with hal, and he got the breakage he did. Either way, seeing |
| 24 |
the USE flag changes tells him nothing about the impending breakage. He can |
| 25 |
only know that by *doing it*, or reading about others that did it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Let's look at this sanely and realise that there's nothing magic about hal and |
| 28 |
what it did. It has bugs. Big deal. So did jpeg and look at the carnage that |
| 29 |
one caused. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
How would your method of handling USE have assisted in preventing that |
| 32 |
breakage? Please note that the breakage in jpeg is much *much* more common |
| 33 |
than changes to default USE. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives