On 17/12/18 15:51, Michał Górny 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. > > Even if you don't care beyond changing this now and forgetting about it > afterwards, someone eventually will have to clean up the old variable > and actively force people to update. > Correct, but surely this doesn't apply in any other areas of Gentoo, eg. perhaps Ebuilds? EAPIs? PMS? QA?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
