On 17/12/18 12:54, Michał Górny wrote: >> Not only this, but as noted, unless you know the man pages for portage and >> make.conf in order to recite them in your sleep, they are confusing for >> users, as they do not necessarily follow an obvious pattern, and it wasn't >> until I was attempting to debug something that I noticed that despite >> believing I had the correct settings in my make.conf (set over a period of >> YEARS) they were in fact completely useless, and it wasn't until I had to >> spend time with somebody debugging WTF was happening, that this particular >> issue even became apparent... > I don't see how this is an argument for anything. You have to read > the manual in order to know that such variable exists and what it does. > Or, well, technically you don't since it's provided in make.conf.example > already where you only need to uncomment it. > > Either way, the variable name is trivial. Even if you don't follow > the usual pattern of uncommenting it from make.conf.example or copying > from the manual, remembering it for the time needed to retype shoudln't > be a problem. > > So, is this a solution to a real problem? Or is it merely a half- > thought-out partial change that's going to require people to update > their configuration for no long-term benefit? And then they will have > to update it again when someone decides to take another variable for > a spin. > In the case you hadn't noticed, clearly you haven't .. the change is backwards compatible.. that has already been thought out.
But you haven't actually looked at the patch have you, Michal ?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
