On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Ezequiel Garcia <elezegar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Ezequiel Garcia <elezegar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Florian Philipp <li...@binarywings.net> >>> wrote: >>>> Am 12.07.2012 17:40, schrieb Ezequiel Garcia: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I was trying to emerge gnash but failed. Here's the output.... >>>>> >>>>> The problem seems to be boost_thread not present. I'll try to emerge >>>>> that, but in any case this >>>>> looks like a gentoo bug in gnash ebuild. >>>>> >>>>> If anyone helps me filling a new bug, I'll appreciate it. >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Could be related to >>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366407 >>>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> It seems this is a different bug. >>> >>> Before filing a new bug, I should do emerge --sync, >>> (to have latest ebuilds), right? >> >> For me, I'd go: >> >> # In case there's something already broken I don't know about. >> revdep-rebuild >> >> # Remove 'theoretically' unused versions of things. >> emerge --depclean >> >> # Because we ran --depclean, something may now be broken. >> revdep-rebuild >> >> # does an emerge --sync >> eix-sync >> >> # Perhaps specify the particular package, instead of @world >> emerge --update --deep --newuse @world >> >> # Again, remove old versions of things. >> emerge --depclean >> >> # Again, because --depclean can break things. >> revdep-rebuild >> >> ...and then see if I can reproduce it. >> > > Ok, I'll do that. > > >>> I wonder why they've used boost! (I'm not a big fan of it) >> >> Boost probably had some code in it they didn't want to reinvent >> themselves. It's also pretty common, which makes things easier for a >> developer who wants to get into more distributions' repositories. >> > > Of course. But then again, this is arguable. > > In theory reusing code is a great thing, > in practice I've seen it leading to big bloating problems. > > Also as a developer I don't really like to force my users > to have a monster library installed to use my code.
Developer here, too. Mostly C++ on Windows, though I far prefer the way Linux does things. :) In theory, using in-house code seems like a great thing. Having written it, I understand it, I understand its API, and it's not a big blob of unknowns for me to fear when debugging my programs. In practice, I've seen more time (and money!) spent reinventing the wheel for any given project than it would take to pull in a library. I've seen and participated, designed and/or led in the redevelopment of locking mechanisms, nested image compositing engines, database abstraction layers, deferred I/O abstraction frameworks and probably a half-dozen other things I'm forgetting right now. Each and _every_ time, a great deal amount of developer time is consumed at the outset with development, and then over the life of the code as bugs (some of which simply come from underestimating or misunderstanding the resulting complexity of the system) turn up. NIH costs. I'd rather use a widespread library than write my own, wherever possible. But, of course, that's just _my_ humble opinion. And each circumstance warrants its own cost/benefit analysis. -- :wq
