[arch-general] Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises

[Arvid Picciani]

Allan McRae wrote:

> While I am at it, lets see why your arguements just grepping for 
> "enable|disable" etc are idiotic.  Take the gcc PKGBUILD:

i have pointed out myself that those do not form a valid argument.
Trying to disprove my other points by doing that _again_ does not work.

> I personally think your mis-reading the "Arch Way".  We do not patch to 
> add features that are not supported upstream but I have never seen 
> anything mentioned about using minimal configure flags.

Let me quote "the arch way 2.0"  which has a very nice condensed 
statement that does in fact support minimalism:

"
without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications

Simplicity is the primary principle. All other principles must be 
sacrificed in favor of design simplicity. Implementation simplicity is 
more important than interface simplicity.
"

Please provide an interpretaton of this statement that does support 
enabling features for the sake of interface simplicity, breaking design 
simplicity in the process.

> So you filed bug reports about this? 

I can, for the sake of disarming that as counter argument.
I can't see how this adds anything to the original points though.


-- 
Arvid
Asgaard Technologies