On 02/24/19 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:30 PM desultory <desult...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/20/19 02:36, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules)
>>>>> - prune_libtool_files --all
>>>>> + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die
>>>>
>>>> Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"?
>>>
>>> I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that
>>> 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going to
>>> see many packages installing '*.la' non-files.
>>>
>> Just so we are all clear here: your argument is that more fully correct
>> approaches should not be considered in the present and future because
>> less fully correct approaches were implemented in the past? And,
>> further, that since nothing matching a specific pattern happens to come
>> to your mind at he moment, such things do not exist? Perhaps dialing
>> back the rhetoric from 11 and considering feedback as an opportunity to
>> improve existing code is called for in this case, among others.
>
> I think you might be reading more into this than was intended.
>
I am reading into it what was written into it.
> I read his email as lamenting that the horse has left the barn, so to
> speak.
Since we are going with animal husbandry analogies, his specific manner
of rejecting feedback was more akin to leaving the barn door open,
letting the horse go play in traffic and ignoring that there is no real
reason to believe that the horse will not be killed by a vehicle on the
basis of it has only been hit a few times and has not yet succumbed to
its injuries.
> There are already hundreds of uses of find -name '*.la' -delete
> without -type f in the tree, probably in large part because
> ltprune.eclass suggests the form without it.
>
Which, following the animal husbandry theme brings us to the elephant in
the room [1]:
"
# @MAINTAINER:
# Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org>
"
Given that another developer has noted two different issues with the
suggested boilerplate [2][3], why has he, as a member of QA and as
maintainer of the eclass in question, rejected or simply ignored their
concerns? He would not even need to override another maintainer to fix a
*comment* in that eclass. Is asking for rationale somehow that much of a
problem?
> Suggesting dialing down the rhetoric when it appears that you have
> overreacted is a bit humorous.
>
Given his behavior, it hardly seems so to me.
>
[1] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/plain/eclass/ltprune.eclass
[2]
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/d528ab54d230afc11430ea9660c7feaa
[3]
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/539b9ba7d4b21086bc2ba3b8d11dacdb
