From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C32FA15815E for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE1432BC023; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0.riseup.net (mx0.riseup.net [198.252.153.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 621832BC01B for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fews02-sea.riseup.net (fews02-sea-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.112]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TX7bt1P1mz9tbl for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:22:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1707564138; bh=RS15nCRAgGxjRmQK6fE0IO8nOQhisCem7ySqMsJAqzE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XgqlqoZNiGh3uLIwajGTmwr0Iwy+acoHTuUZBpLETfnVf7WTr2vQQMDHZhGzHtoIz zJWK5mG7GG1TpfPsctHhsb095mAZpE8ldnNhfHXz9bdB0aervOBrdAdE667U4VHMfp x503DgLgYFX8MP4MGL1LlTYDJ2GFyXk/s4GciZI4= X-Riseup-User-ID: 5441370FF71BD633BC669C2BEBBADC00DA2260166FCD073E2C005487103622CE Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews02-sea.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4TX7bs6zTXzFt6R for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:22:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 03:22:16 -0800 From: orbea To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] special small-files USE flag without effect on dependencies: [ unicode ] Message-ID: <20240210032216.6a7637ae@Akita> In-Reply-To: <56ee84f4-ba11-46b1-9e44-164eb4168e33@gmail.com> References: <6eae895976c68d4c4a4d2036476d4d100c63c797.camel@gentoo.org> <91f35079-037f-45aa-8041-c964e418818b@gmail.com> <177a7913d39c590f43a8261b96ebf155b642d6a8.camel@gentoo.org> <4a608d4e-a605-41a7-9d64-3ef4247f834b@gmail.com> <95043973757aab8c25587fbe98409a85a330b658.camel@gentoo.org> <56ee84f4-ba11-46b1-9e44-164eb4168e33@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9146674a-bf63-483d-a829-a0a11e7226b6 X-Archives-Hash: e33d33bbe304e30fe09c9e84845f553a On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:56:55 -0500 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. Fwiw I still use both and Gentoo removing specifically Libressl has only been detrimental. There is a huge amount of extra and redundant maintainer work when all of the fixes have to be applied over and over again without changes as the main Gentoo repo gets updated. Its relatively rare that the fixes have to be rebased or changed against their respective upstream, but rebasing it against Gentoo is an extremely common and tedious task. Your argument is invalid and not appreciated. > > 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. > >