Re: [gentoo-dev] special small-files USE flag without effect on dependencies: [ unicode ]

[David Seifert <soap@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, 2024-02-09 at 22:56 +0000, stefan11111 wrote:
> On 2024-02-09 21:56, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > On 2/9/24 4:25 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > > This is the part where you try to convince me that the things I
> > > want
> > > are stupid. OK. I don't care. I want it off. Leave me alone :)
> > 
> > 
> > As evidenced by the removal of libressl and eudev, this logic is
> > fallacious and wrong and not the way Gentoo is developed.
> > 
> 
> Both removals definitely not still being contested and debated.
> 
> > Gentoo does indeed discuss the things that people want, and try to
> > determine whether they are useful to users, whether they are a
> > placebo,
> > and whether they are maintainable or have an adverse effect either
> > on
> > users or on the effort to maintain a consistent tree.
> > 
> > So circling back around to the start of the thread:
> > 
> > > pkgcheck complains about each new version of dev-lisp/sbcl:
> > 
> > It is the allegation of the QA team that the option is a lie, it
> > contains no purpose or value and doesn't contribute to use choice,
> > and
> > pkgcheck is reporting the QA team's allegation.
> > 
> > If you wish to convince the QA team otherwise, be my guest... but I
> > would personally encourage you to come up with a better argument
> > than
> > "the option makes me feel better about myself, I don't care what you
> > have to say, just leave my options alone goshdarnit; I have the
> > right 
> > to
> > be stupid".
> > 
> > Because I don't think you're likely to convince anyone like that. 
> > Sorry.
> 
> Maybe support as much choice as possible, and not act like you know
> what 
> users want better that the users themselves.
> 

Are users like you going to maintain and fix these obscure bugs too? I
don't recall seeing you sending in many fixes or patches, yet you seem
to be demanding that we go out of our way to accommodate you.