From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-80207-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D26C0139694
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:29:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C602E0D24;
	Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:29:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from forward3m.cmail.yandex.net (forward3m.cmail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:b030::1a])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29342E0D09
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:29:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp3o.mail.yandex.net (smtp3o.mail.yandex.net [37.140.190.28])
	by forward3m.cmail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id CAF1D21204
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:29:27 +0300 (MSK)
Received: from smtp3o.mail.yandex.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp3o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id A1EAD2940CED
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:29:26 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by smtp3o.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id AqSZclJ9CS-TQouf3qf;
	Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:29:26 +0300
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(Client certificate not present)
X-Yandex-Suid-Status: 1 0
From: "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" <gentoo@mva.name>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 03:29:25 +0700
Message-ID: <5950999.Gx5BNhHzAl@note>
In-Reply-To: <assp.027306b02a.20170410155705.33bfc1c8@o-sinc.com>
References: <assp.0272b0f9bd.20170409121556.58d21016@o-sinc.com> <20170410203822.2cbc440b@snowblower> <assp.027306b02a.20170410155705.33bfc1c8@o-sinc.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: be905a53-4d71-4b9f-9246-46f6a454b20c
X-Archives-Hash: ea74dacb5cd9d0277fd1b26479e08380

Am I right in assumption that you arguing about *_TARGETS rework to be enabled 
by default for packages that was not tested on this TARGETs with ... hardness 
of packaging java software?..

Or does it just argmentum ad verecundiam (with argumentum ad hominem 
partially)?

And yes, I personally packaged Java software from scratch (including all the 
depends).

And yes, some times I even thought "F**k this sh*t!" (but finished packaging 
afterwards).

And yes, I packaged Go software.

And yes, I packaged NodeJS software.

And no, they are NOT much easy to package then Java one (even including they 
still have no TARGETS... As java? :D).

But how does it apply to TARGETS logic breakage?

The purpose of TARGETS is that package holds only that TARGETs that it was 
tested to work against. It is wrong to have any targets enabled by default for 
all the packages and removing in case if it is broken. Instead, if new target 
appeared a month (year, decade) ago, but package, that you're interested in, 
still doesn't support it... Well.. It meant, maintainer is a slacker and 
package is a candidate to last-rites and removal...