On 2021-01-08 18:06, Mike Gilbert wrote:
I disagree with your premise: I argue that the eclass is not "broken", and the code works as designed. You just don't like aspects of its design.
Several people, not just me... *users*, other devs like robbat2 and antarus, all with experience in maintaining multiple systems not just as a hobby, have expressed that the current design has a flaw.
I got feedback from other devs representing a large group in Gentoo and they all agree on the problem. They haven't spoken up yet because they don't care because the way how they use Gentoo is stateless.
So why the hell is it acceptable for a small group (you and mgorny, Michael told me already last year that he will be fine with an opt-in change and I assume his opinion hasn't changed) to cause problems for another group just because you don't want to acknowledge the problem?
Even soap, not sure if he has spoken for himself or as QA lead, has acknowledged in this thread that we need a mechanism to disable this behavior.
Is it really not possible to solve this technical problem? Do we have to escalate and need a vote or something to replace entire GLEP 81 with something new just because a group believes there is no flaw and everyone else having problems are doing things wrong so this group is rejecting any attempts to address the problem?
-- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
