Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
What you describe _is_ the status-quo. The 95% are broken and remain broken (unless a lot of work is spent), no matter which of the suggested solutions is chosen. I am voting to *keep* better this than to change the status-quo by breaking the 5% working percent, too: mgorny's suggestion to kill l10n.eclass (or, more abstractly speaking, to forbid setting LINGUAS based in USE-flags within an ebuild) just influences the 5% of ebuilds which are currently using this mechanism and thus are non-broken (if their IUSE is correctly maintained). Removing l10n.eclass would throw these 5% back to the broken state of the other 95%, and even forbid by policy that any other would be fixed. I really cannot see an advantage in doing this, except for some irrational feeling of "consistency" to have everything equally broken.
