Alec Warner posted on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:45:51 -0700 as excerpted: > The portion that is not clear to me is why there is so much animosity > against a var to enable .la files. > > [I trust the technical decision, but] when someone makes a statement > like 'removing .la files will not break anything' [I get nervous.] I > don't think any one person can make statements like that. [The] risk is > [too] difficult to quantify [like that]. > > Because of the above, adding a toggle to roll back the change seems like > a reasonable request. If the idea is to add a remove_la_files type > function to eutils then the toggle can be added in a centralized place.
> The work to add a rollback trigger is all of 5 lines of bash; > so why would we avoid adding it? ++ This is what I've been saying. Centralizing it is a good idea anyway, and once that's done, a control var is trivial. Even if those objecting to systemic removal don't know what they're talking about, instituting this one trivial control var pretty well eliminates the opposition, and because implementation of such a control var /is/ trivial, doing it simply to eliminate the politics would seem the sensible thing. We've already spent more time arguing about it than it'd take to implement the control var, and potentially enough to have it well documented as well! =:^\ -- 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
