On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 11:48, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:17:31AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
[snip]
> > > There are, in any case, _lots_ of problems with these large files.
>
> > All of those are SA issues.
>
> So is compiling the software correctly, if the distinction has any
> meaning at all. When some mis-installed bit of software breaks, the
> DBAs won't go running to the SAs. They'll ask here.
Either case, they're going to ask. You can give them a simple solution
or you can make them run around and pull their hair out.
You're also assuming that SA = developer. I can assure you it does
not. I've met many an SA who's development experience was "make" and
korn scripts. Expecting that he should know to use GNU_SOURCE and
BITS=64, it a pretty far reach. Furthermore, you're even expecting that
he knows that such a "recompile" fix even exists. Where do you think
he's going to turn? The lists. That's right. Since he's going to
contact the list or review a faq item anyways, doesn't it make sense to
give them the easy way out (the the initiator and the mailing list)?
IMO, powerful tools seem to always be capable enough to shoot your self
in the foot. Why make pay special attention with this sole feature
which doesn't really address it to begin with?
Would you at least agree that "--enable-large-files", rather than
CFLAGS=xxx, is a good idea as might well be banners and log entries
stating that large file support has or has not been compiled in?
Greg
