On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: > > > > > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack as > > > ugly as eblits? > > > > > > > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. > > > > I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather about "when > you want to change something you don't maintain, you have to justify it > properly"
Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to: 1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and basically make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> aim for bus factor of 1 and/or making himself indispensable)? 2. enforce package managers to exhibit non-PMS behavior by making core system packages rely on it? Not to mention minor incompatibilities causing silent breakage. Do you really believe *we* ought to be explaining ourselves? All those reasons have been provided. If Mike does not accept them, we can't do anything about it. You can claim we ought to explain till the maintainer is convinced but I think we both know that nobody's going to convince anyone, and the only result would be stalling the change for even more than the 9 months so far. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
