On 02/01/2013 01:22 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 13:07, Michael Weber wrote:
>> Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet
>> another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software.
>
> Which would be all fine and dandy ....
>
>> I agree on your testing effort and practice, but compliance with the
>> weirdest of all setups shouldn't be ultimate reason.
>
> ... if you had a clue on what you were saying.
>
> The tinderbox _by design_ is not testing "weirdest of all setups", it's
> testing baseline.
Yeah, but test for /usr/share/doc/${PF} (random to irrelevant),
$CFLAGS/$LDFLAGS/$AR (enable these miraculous setup), automake-1.12 (at
what point in future do you see that as oldest in-tree) last are no
statement regarding a packages functionality on a plain system.
>And if nobody's interested in getting (example)
> media-video/w3cam working (#247917 — last activity on the bug by me on
> 2010; last activity by someone else in 2008!), I don't see why it should
> be kept in tree.
*insert random example here*
I did not argue to keep these in tree, or to label them a+++.
Martin and I did not argue that there are no circumstances an software
should be left alone. We both said, that not working with qt3/... may be
a strong argument.
> Bloody hell, I wonder how many people complaining about removing
> packages are actually using said packages, rather that complaining on
> principles!
Keep on the ground.
I rather prefer a combined discussion on "principles" or workflow, than
bringing up this discussion for every single package.
This is a general Gentoo list, so the mails might get some kind of
"general".
--
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber <[email protected]>
