On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:46:53PM +0100, David Leverton wrote: > This has been pointed > out ever since the issue was first discussed, but some people like to > stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss legitimate technical > arguments as "trolling" and "politics".
The issue is some folk are trying to be pragmatic, and some folk are sticking to "it's not the proper long term solution thus don't do it at all". The question shouldn't be "is it long term the right or wrong solution", the question should be "yes it's not perfect, but what is the gain of deploying it?" Literally, do we break more by deploying it then we gain? Is the reduction in intermediate broken packages (and general linkage whonkyness) being mostly sorted worth the cost of some cranky packages breaking from it? That is the question. If the only correct answer is "it must be the right technical solution always" we'd theoretically be running hurd rather than linux after all, nor would the prefix project be in wide usage. Alternatively rather than arguing, someone needs to go out and get some data to back this change (and/or back the stance it causes more damage than it's worth). Personally, I've been running as-needed for a while- while not a fan of it, it's been an overall plus for my usage. The question is if it's an overall gain to deploy globally (iirc fedora/ubuntu are running this way now). ~harring
pgpNqSGT0ZRpZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
