On Tuesday 28 February 2006 21:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:09:02 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
> | >
> | > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> | > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
> | >
> | > emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
> | > fi
> |
> | No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you
> | point out to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours
> | ago, saving us from all the eclass formating, slotting and ewarn
> | blurb.
>
> Why didn't you look before accusing me of not having valid issues? I
> mean, it's pretty frickin' hard to miss that one.This code (or an equivalent kludge/hack) does however allow features that are of great value to our users. While I agree that such hacks should be avoided if possible, I think in this case it is not. As such the appropriate response is to isolate the hack in a central place, where it is clear to be seen and can easilly be fixed. This allows the quality of the hack to be ensured, relieving many webapps from doing hacks themselves. While this hack is being used, some effort should be put into constructively creating a proper solution for the problems that were hacked around. Saying "this is not allowed because of X policy" is not helpful as the costs of disallowing it greatly outweigh the costs of overlooking it in a controlled manner. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpycg6fljZy3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
