On 2 June 2016 at 07:33, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > > I prefer to have at least 5% of the ebuilds working and the other > being fixable (if their maintainers want to spend the effort) > than to remove a concept which breaks also these 5% and turns > all ebuilds non-fixable, in principle.
Changing the status-quo to "broken by default and needs 95% of the tree to change to not be broken" is a bad precedent. Its better to have 100% of the tree *not* broken by default, and then we progressively whittle the tree into a flexible state. ( At least, this is what I've gathered so far ) > >> I'm not going to continue the discussion if you are so blinded by >> LINGUAS that you are even unable to understand what I'm talking about, >> and consistently mix the LINGUAS concept and INSTALL_MASK concept, > > ...says the man who mixes this wildly in the first posting by > suggesting to recommend the user to not use LINGUAS and use > INSTALL_MASK *instead*; as a reply to my warning to not mix > these completely unrelated concepts. LINGUAS affects compilation due to weird toolchains. INSTALL_MASK just nukes files. -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
