Peter Stuge posted on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:20:27 +0100 as excerpted:
Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
PHP_TARGETS=5.3 5.4
RUBY_TARGETS=1.9
PYTHON_TARGETS=2.7
But maybe it would be too problematic?
What will you do with PYTHON_TARGETS=python2_7 python3_2 pypy1_9
jython2_5 then?
That's an excellent point. Thanks!
Thinking out loud another round: _TARGETS is an interface by Gentoo,
so maybe it would not be such a bad idea to use existing Gentoo
identifiers there, ie. (a subset of?) PMS version specifications.
On the net-nntp/pan upstream (which I've been involved with for about a
decade now), but I'm sure it's not original to pan, wishlist bugs that
would be nice to fix someday, maybe when all the other bugs are fixed,
or if someone profiles all the patches, does a bunch of testing, etc...
these sorts of wishlist bugs are set to milestone target bluesky.
IMO, that's exactly what this is, a target bluesky wishlist item.
Except here it's worse, because the change will be very end-user visible,
requiring configuration adjustments on running/working systems, for
little reason, and unlike someone providing patches, someone can't
reasonably volunteer to go around and fix everyone's systems for them.
Yes, it'd be nice to have consistent *_TARGETS values. But IMO it's a
whole lot of potentially bug triggering work on packages that are working
just fine as they are, for comparatively little gain. What's worse is
that these changes will require end-user configuration changes. So
people aren't impressed with the inconsistency. They'll be far LESS
impressed if things break due to bugs, and I know a lot of former
gentooers who already complain about both that, and about the need for
constant attention to config changes, reading news and the various elog
style notifications and jumping thru the necessary hoops to keep things
working, etc. We don't need MORE of those hoops to jump thru, and at
this point, I just don't see that it's worth it. Rather, it's almost at
the level of change for change' sake, or at least, it's sure going to
look like that to the users having to adjust their *_TARGETS vars.
That's far less impressive than a bit of inter-package *_TARGETS
inconsistency.
So like someone suggested in an earlier thread on simply changing some
name or other, I take it if we're discussing this, all the REAL bugs are
already fixed and there's nothing else more important left to do, right?
Because that's about the point at which I think we should be focusing on
things like this.
Just MHO, no more, no less.
--
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
