On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:21:15 +0000 Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> On 13/01/16 10:54, David Seikel wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:07:01 +0000 Andrew Williams > > <a...@andywilliams.me> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I agree with all your points and consider the merge a good thing. > >> However I'm not sure why we're avoiding a --disable flag for those > >> who specifically don't want it - is it much work to satisfy a use > >> case? > > > > You had been away for some time, you might have missed Raster and I > > arguing over this sort of stuff. Raster prefers a "compile > > everything, just delete the stuff you don't need afterwards" > > approach. He seems to strongly dislike autodetecting stuff as > > well. I prefer to autodetect stuff, and disabling stuff I don't > > need before compile. In particular he always puts down my efforts > > to sanely squeeze EFL size down to fit into my embedded project, no > > matter how many times I point out to him that the legislation > > covering this sort of device requires it. > > > > So that's why, coz Raster. > > I disagree with raster on some things, and agree on others. A lot of > people have different views on many different things, and putting it > as if it's the sane world on one side, and the unreasonable raster on > the other is not fair, and not true. Actually the "sanely squeeze EFL" part referred to my efforts to do the squeeze, not to Rasters mental state. I've met insane people, lived next door to one last year, Raster doesn't seem to be insane to me. B-) > More specifically, I disagree with raster on the build now and remove > later. Elementary is a completely separate module (to the point that > it's in its own repo at the moment!). I think it's very reasonable to > have a "disable" flag for it. It takes time to build elementary, I > don't want to waste that time either (if I don't want it). > > As for autodetection: we tried it, it was hell. If I remember > correctly I was actually one of the strongest (loudest?) opponents to > autodetection. Autodetection made it so it was very hard to predict > what you'd get in your system at the end of the build. For example, > you couldn't easily enforce similar compilation on two different > boxes, not to mention on the same box after a reinstall, accidental > package removal/addition and etc. Explicitly choosing options is > definitely the way to go. -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
