On 20 April 2017 at 16:21:21, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > Actually, Allan said he dislikes that concept entirely and refuses to > merge it at all because: > 1) CFLAGS+="-flto" should be set in makepkg.conf, not libmakepkg > 2) PGO will not be a thing because "I am not adding an option to makepkg > that does non-deterministic optimisation." > 3) PGO that involves makepkg being context-sensitive between two makepkg > runs, is not an option; use a wrapper script with multiple > makepkg.conf's instead. > Lack of time is not the issue, in fact, Allan has reviewed *lots* of > pacman/makepkg patches, and merged lots of them, in the time he has > refused to even consider these. That was the beginning but it seems you didn't follow the discussion, see: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2016-April/021028.html https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1628371#p1628371 > Failing testsuites mean that real issues will never be discovered, which > means the whole point of running testsuites is nullified. So no, it is > not a minor bug. Sorry, but that's pure speculation. Did you asked upstream if this bug is serious or the actual maintainer ask them? If one Arch user didn't report it it would be never fixed. > I don't know why openssl 1.1 is still in testing. But I do know that > merely assuming it is ready to be moved today except for that package, > is rather naive. I am going to assume that the Devs have actual reasons > for what they do. Again you speculate. I've seen to many times maintainers forget about their packages for months until other devs name them explicitly in arch-dev mailinglist. > Aside: your emails seem to be wrapped in an over-aggressive manner, why > such short lines? I'm very sorry. I was annoyed that discussion is moving out of topic. That was inappropriate
