Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 16:24:05 +0100 as excerpted: > On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:04 +0100 as >> excerpted: >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 +0000 (UTC) >> > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> >> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack. >> > >> > Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of >> > using it without risk of breakage. >> >> LOL. Better turn off that computer then. By your definition it's a >> hack. Or at least remove anything gentoo related from it. That's a >> hack too. Oh, and that stove and microwave, better throw them away >> too, because leave something cooking too long and... FIRE! So >> they're hacks too. > > That's nonsense, and you know it. There is a big difference between a > carefully designed feature that only breaks if someone screws up, and > something which breaks arbitrarily with no warning. One of the things > about working with computers is that, if something breaks, it's because > someone screwed up. If you really think you can't use your computer > without something breaking, you should carefully consider who is doing > the screwing up.
That's the point. It *IS* possible to use INSTALL_MASK sanely, without something breaking. Applying your exact phrasing to the topic at hand: "If you really think[1] you can't use INSTALL_MASK without something breaking, you should carefully consider who is doing the screwing up." [1] Think: Or for that matter, demonstrate to yourself and others. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
