$ grep -R llvm-vim * sys-devel/llvm/llvm-9999.ebuild:PDEPEND="app-vim/llvm-vim sys-devel/llvm/llvm-4.0.0.ebuild:PDEPEND="app-vim/llvm-vim DESCRIPTION="Vim support files for LLVM" ... why?!
Because most of people don't mind 48 KiB for 6 text files.
*** Bug 613270 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 623134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> most people Are we ubuntu to think for "most people", or are we gentoo with Gentoo Philosophy?!? Despite I use vim myself, I vote for this bug be fixed instead of WONTFIX.
(In reply to Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov (mva) from comment #4) > > most people > > Are we ubuntu to think for "most people", or are we gentoo with Gentoo > Philosophy?!? > > Despite I use vim myself, I vote for this bug be fixed instead of WONTFIX. Please read the policies for USE flags. Thank you. Being Gentoo doesn't mean we have to do stupid things and do harm to the people who will have to spend 3 hours rebuilding LLVM just because someone has a problem seeing 6 text files and has too big an ego to use INSTALL_MASK instead of expecting others to fix his problems.
Argument about "3 hours rebuilding LLVM" is reasonable. But what considerations prevent to correct this problem in the ebuild for next version of llvm? Thank you.
(In reply to Michael Uleysky from comment #6) > Argument about "3 hours rebuilding LLVM" is reasonable. But what > considerations prevent to correct this problem in the ebuild for next > version of llvm? The same. Accidentally setting the wrong value of a USE flag that shouldn't be there in the first place should not cause the user to have to rebuild a huge package to get a tiny missing file that doesn't do any harm otherwise. This has been discussed to death. The policy is there. If you don't like it, follow the procedure for changing it instead of bothering people who follow it.
First of all, please don't take discussion in this bug as personal offense to you (or any other dev). It is not. It is just our point of view. === So, it looks like gentoo trades people who are "too lazy to add _one_more_ path to INSTALL_MASK" to keep their system clean from what they didn't request, for people who are too lazy to perform something like `emerge -1O llvm-vim`. By the way, it is possible to not depend on llvm-vim at all. And, I think, it will still be better then install it unconditionally. It is also a question about the reason why gentoo prefers one text editor (vim) over others (neovim, nano, emacs, ...) and installs only it's syntax files, while ignoring others. === But even talking in the way of USE="vim-syntax": > Please read the policies for USE flags. Thank you. Did you mean the rule that forbids DEPEND-only USE-flags? Well, you're right in the effort to obey the policies, but: 1) look at the bunch of other packages in the gentoo repo, that have "vim-syntax". 2) how about libressl use-flag? :) > The policy is there. If you don't like it, follow the procedure for changing it instead of bothering people who follow it. Yes, changing the policies would be the right way to fix the issue, but unfortunately it takes too much time for typical gentoo user to finish the entire procedure. I guess, there should either be easier way to propose changes, or some kind of proxy-developers, who can help in that case. === ... And there is also a problem like "48kb here, 6mb there, few gigabytes in total".
(In reply to Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov (mva) from comment #8) > It is also a question about the reason why gentoo prefers one text editor > (vim) over others (neovim, nano, emacs, ...) and installs only it's syntax > files, while ignoring others. Because that's what happens to be included in the LLVM package at the moment, and it's what collides between slots. But yeah, I'll waste my time renaming this package to llvm-common so that our users can be more happy about its name. Enjoy. > > Please read the policies for USE flags. Thank you. > > Did you mean the rule that forbids DEPEND-only USE-flags? No, the rule that forbids using USE flags to control tiny text files with no dependencies, whose cost is infinitely much smaller than the cost of rebuilding the package. > Well, you're right in the effort to obey the policies, but: > > 1) look at the bunch of other packages in the gentoo repo, that have > "vim-syntax". Existing offences are no excuse to ignore the policy and make things even worse. > > The policy is there. If you don't like it, follow the procedure for changing it instead of bothering people who follow it. > > Yes, changing the policies would be the right way to fix the issue, but > unfortunately it takes too much time for typical gentoo user to finish the > entire procedure. I guess, there should either be easier way to propose > changes, or some kind of proxy-developers, who can help in that case. So instead you keep reopening the same discussion all over the place without bothering to find the previous one, and present the same wrong arguments and cause my frustration to reach the point where I wish Gentoo Bugzilla had a way to disable discussion on a bug.
