Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted:
> Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: >> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly >> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. >> This is in general a bad experience for stable users who want to get >> work done, not baby-sit their system. > > Seriously, how many times do you re-install packages out of binpkgs on a > _build_ system? Frequently enough for it to be a consideration. Among other things, it's a fast way to roll-back to a working version when a new version goes haywire, for whatever reason. I strongly recommend that users enable FEATURES=buildpkg for a host of reasons, and having it break or cause additional complications for them is not a good thing. Of course I also strongly recommend lafilefixer (based on your blog, BTW), too, but yeah, people /do/ sometimes reinstall from binpkgs on a build system. Having binpkgs around for my build system has saved my behind a number of times! You can't simply ignore potential issues because they don't happen to fit your usage case. But is there anything wrong with Zac's suggestion to use post_pkg_preinst instead? (Better to reply to that under his post, just mentioning that there's a suggested solution.) [context reinserted] >>> I don't think it makes much difference though to them — >>> beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try. >> I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase >> your objections with what I said in a way I can understand so that I >> can address them? > > I'm pretty sure I did that before But even if that "before" included him, it is not yet part of the public record of this discussion. Perhaps a simple link to that previous discussion, for the public record in this one? The jab /was/ rather unnecessary and uncalled for, and would have been better not posted. Even if the subject had been dealt with before, the question raised was a legitimate one to be raised here as part of the public record of /this/ discussion (where it had yet to be raised), which is, after all, part of the reason for the policy to post such things to this (public) list before simply adding them to the tree. And, it would seem, Zac has a suggestion to help, again part of the reason for the policy, the end product ends up better for it. =:^) I realize there's a reason for your nick, but that doesn't mean you have to live up to it. =:^) Meanwhile, thanks for pushing the news item. The whole lafilefixer thing has been needed for some time, and now that it's available and quite well tested, getting the news out is a /good/ thing! =:^) -- 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
