Jakub Moc wrote: > Erm, how exactly will you find out that you need to recompile that package > after such extensive build? You'll spend a couple of hours debugging when > your server app stops working? Yay! :P
I had assumed that in such a case the ebuild would output a scary-looking ewarn that notified the user of such a problem. > Oh please, stop making up artificial policies doing no good to users just to > hack around lacking features in portage. Was I so impolite that you felt the need to be rude in turn? If so, I certainly apologize, as it was not my intention. I don't believe that I made up this policy, although it's been around as an unofficial policy for so long that I couldn't really say one way or the other. In any event, I certainly agree that fixing portage would be preferable to policies that work around portage's warts. On the other hand, until those warts get fixed it seems useful to have a set of "best practices" in the meantime. I'm arguing that sudden, difficult to predict package build breakages are a bigger sin than having a package build deterministic functionality that may be unexpected by the user. You (I think) believe the opposite. Fair enough. -g2boojum-
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
