On 07/24/19 10:40, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:56:52 -0400
> desultory <desult...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> avoid optional documentation,
>> while the proposal in question explicitly would
> I assume you meant 'optional dependencies' here right? :)
The user-side effects pf the proposal in question, were it to become
policy, would be that anyone seeking to not install what is presently
optional documentation would either be:
(1) wasting build time and space (and, depending on implementation,
dependencies) on their build system (potentially  masking the files from
being installed);
(2) wasting the space in their installed image(s) (if they did not mask
the files which would not currently be installed anyway); or
(3) wasting their own time working around what the developers would be
required by policy to implement by repackaging the software themselves
to avoid the time and space drawbacks (though this would generally be
expected to be a rather exceptional case, as it would be relatively
extreme to avoid what would be a distfile and some file masking from the
user side).

Developer-side effects of the proposal in question would explicitly
force developers to use bespoke workarounds to avoid adding optional
dependencies to packages, for questionable gains.

So, while I was commenting on user-side effects, the phrasing applies to
developer-side effects  given s/documentation/dependencies/.

As I have noted elsewhere, there is a solution for which the majority of
the tooling exists which could achieve the same ends as the proposal in
question without causing developers in general significant additional
overhead beyond the status quo, while as a side effect providing
additional services to users. However, the proposal in question
specifically avoids offloading the newly generated work to automated
systems in favor of, evidently, optimizing for maximum consumption of
resources with minimal standardization.

Reply via email to