On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 21:09 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:51 AM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 15:44 +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > > 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 ? > > > > > > > I did look at it. However, that doesn't change what I said. Being > > 'backwards compatible' does not change the fact that the old variable > > becomes deprecated now. Ergo, users are expected to eventually switch > > to the new one. > > > > So if we rewrote the patches to not deprecate the old one but to support > both; how would that strike you? >
As a horrible idea, violating SPOT rule? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
