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 TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D423E138334 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FAF6E0985; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:51:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14217E0959 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:51:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A6BC33BEC0; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] xorg-2.eclass: Remove use of prune_libtool_files To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Matt Turner References: <20190220044541.30272-1-mattst88@gentoo.org> <20190220044541.30272-2-mattst88@gentoo.org> <1550648203.1036.5.camel@gentoo.org> From: desultory Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:51:45 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 261b3038-a1b5-48de-af2f-18fa0a891bd8 X-Archives-Hash: b883ff884250042f5c1fbc3061a00439 On 02/24/19 01:19, Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:30 PM desultory wrote: >> >> On 02/20/19 02:36, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 07:20 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Matt Turner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> # Don't install libtool archives (even for modules) >>>>> - prune_libtool_files --all >>>>> + find "${D}" -name '*.la' -delete || die >>>> >>>> Maybe restrict removal to regular files, i.e. add "-type f"? >>> >>> I suppose you should have spoken up when people started adopting that >>> 'find' line all over the place. Though I honestly doubt we're going to >>> see many packages installing '*.la' non-files. >>> >> Just so we are all clear here: your argument is that more fully correct >> approaches should not be considered in the present and future because >> less fully correct approaches were implemented in the past? And, >> further, that since nothing matching a specific pattern happens to come >> to your mind at he moment, such things do not exist? Perhaps dialing >> back the rhetoric from 11 and considering feedback as an opportunity to >> improve existing code is called for in this case, among others. > > I think you might be reading more into this than was intended. > I am reading into it what was written into it. > I read his email as lamenting that the horse has left the barn, so to > speak. Since we are going with animal husbandry analogies, his specific manner of rejecting feedback was more akin to leaving the barn door open, letting the horse go play in traffic and ignoring that there is no real reason to believe that the horse will not be killed by a vehicle on the basis of it has only been hit a few times and has not yet succumbed to its injuries. > There are already hundreds of uses of find -name '*.la' -delete > without -type f in the tree, probably in large part because > ltprune.eclass suggests the form without it. > Which, following the animal husbandry theme brings us to the elephant in the room [1]: " # @MAINTAINER: # Michał Górny " Given that another developer has noted two different issues with the suggested boilerplate [2][3], why has he, as a member of QA and as maintainer of the eclass in question, rejected or simply ignored their concerns? He would not even need to override another maintainer to fix a *comment* in that eclass. Is asking for rationale somehow that much of a problem? > Suggesting dialing down the rhetoric when it appears that you have > overreacted is a bit humorous. > Given his behavior, it hardly seems so to me. > [1] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/plain/eclass/ltprune.eclass [2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/d528ab54d230afc11430ea9660c7feaa [3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/539b9ba7d4b21086bc2ba3b8d11dacdb