[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Making DESTDIR support mandatory
Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:11:35AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
>> > Since the branch is cut, perhaps we can progress on the destdir issue.
>> > Btw, thanks for the people who converted another few packages to
>> > destdir support!
>> > I suggest the attached patch -- this makes packages not build if they
>> > are not using destdir support, as incentive for people interested in
>> > them to fix them.
>> > We can then decide before the next branch if we want to revert the
>> > patch, just leave it in (my suggestion), or go further and actually
>> > remove the BROKEN packages.
>> > Comments?
>> This is plain wrong. Convert qmail and nagios to destdir first,
>> then we can return to this discussion. (Declaring working packages broken
>> isn't nice way to go. It isn't correct either.)
> Declaring them as broken is the only way of getting people interested in
> fixing them. Please read the time frame I mentioned in the original mail
You had the same time to fix qmail and nagios as well as any other person.
Except you were working on this actively, while noone else understood
what the fuss was about, and you didn't care to explain. Now you have
few hard cases remaining, you declare them broken. Perfect!
Why have you not converted them then? You had four years for it.
If declaring them as broken is the only way you can handle it, something
must be broken in your ways to deal with the world. Humans generally don't
need and don't like decisions made for them on grounds of some obscure cult.
Your time frame is irrelevant here. Those packages worked and continue
to work for people who are interested in using them. Breaking them
because you follow the cult of User Destdir, isn't the proper way to
Main Index |
Thread Index |