From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E611381F3 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D570E09ED; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f52.google.com (mail-vb0-f52.google.com [209.85.212.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63023E095A for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:12:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id q16so2527054vbe.25 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:12:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=EdVS1bpo6yvfb0YOqAhqwiLiescES5morgy0vc3L1IU=; b=Y8ghJIBpGz5P30zELfO1UfJmPHKDuUeWJ4Ot0y6wK9sN0NemyKrA8LZsiSiRd7mtA4 svvwfTR/rEqkGqR9YSllu/bRAdA7TkHi/4UH2IxjYr9QbjnqSAiS5ajEdt97TVOj/+Rd w6OGpATEEWbnsxUkToiNtw4fMyPfygiIfQOjIRm1y8eHT7QVRTZJ70TIMNZocZF2kRxr ydl1UX0Ef6b1H1w5IVYfPzbc2Ht+YR3PlP9CegJg64abDa38beEJS52BQvgoiuDrT0Xs Z6zFFuCODf/g+DAdOcelycGniZiFV8VvlNyf/41gfzNpDsy5rVe61Nq9694UjrKVACBU sEtA== 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.88.2 with SMTP id bc2mr13677012vdb.27.1367277157468; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.168.4 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:12:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130429232709.6d755604@googlemail.com> References: <20130429075549.06e8ad66@gentoo.org> <201304291436.42577.vapier@gentoo.org> <20130429194917.46d4985c@googlemail.com> <20862.56778.599974.921136@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130429215950.019cd23b@googlemail.com> <20862.62111.902255.208565@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130429232709.6d755604@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:12:37 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bRLFUuta45FvxpKqfBTWDcX5i58 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation? From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: f38c3621-f10b-4922-8be8-a8c34fd9ba19 X-Archives-Hash: c11a63edcb54cfaaa0ce78827bddd6ed On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > What ultimately got approved by the Council, and what implementers > should be following, is the wording which ended up in PMS. > I can't speak for everywhere, but even in the highly regulated environment I work in, an error in a specification is a good reason to fix the specification, not to change the implementation. Whether this is retroactive or forward-going should be based on the practical impact of each, not on whether the council approved something without appreciating every possible ramification of the wording as-written. Specs are a communication tool - not writ from heaven. Arguing over whether we should go ahead and break a whole bunch of packages in the interim just to comply with the spec until it is fixed is basically reducing human intelligence to algorithmic behavior. There is a reason that we program the machines, and not the other way around (yet). If it really is better for our users to follow the spec as-is for now, I'm sure everybody is all ears, but I haven't seen any examples offered. The council is of course welcome to chime in if they'd rather the portage maintainers do so. This whole thing seems best chalked up to well-intending people making omissions (maybe), and the virtue of competent developers who don't just blindly follow the spec when it doesn't make sense. Sure, fix the spec, but it makes more sense to make this retroactive unless somebody can really point to something that this breaks. If the damage from doing so exceeded the damage from not doing so you probably wouldn't even need the council to get everybody to go along with you. Rich