On 17/12/18 15:44, 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 ? > Whilst I'm here .. you won't also have noticed I've updated the documentation too ...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
