1 |
On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:12:01 +0200 |
2 |
Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I've had the 'stricter' FEATURE turned on for some time and found that |
5 |
> many packages failed due to the QA notice regarding poor programming |
6 |
> practices. I filed a few bugs for this but have not gotten a lot of |
7 |
> response, or the suggestion to talk to upstream. Obviously the latter |
8 |
> is always a good option, but I'm wondering what the intend behind |
9 |
> this QA notice is. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> My view is that if this is a QA notice then, if a package doesn't |
12 |
> emerge because of it, it is a Gentoo QA bug and package maintainers |
13 |
> should be responsible for fixing it. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> If the notice is only informational, then the emerge process should |
16 |
> not be stopped because of it (and this would mean that it is nice to |
17 |
> fix these issues but not mandatory). |
18 |
|
19 |
Yeah; it's a bit of a pain, especially if you have '-Wall' in CFLAGS |
20 |
(a large proportion of packages fail if you do). |
21 |
|
22 |
I've ended up removing stricter from FEATURES, which is far from ideal |
23 |
as it means all the other checks are no longer fatal, some of which I |
24 |
really want to know about at emerge time (well, to be honest, I've |
25 |
ended up patching portage locally to make the "bad code" thing |
26 |
non-fatal). |
27 |
|
28 |
In a broader scope, we could do with a "QA check control" file or |
29 |
something to provide finer-grained control of these QA checks. However |
30 |
the QA checks themselves seem to be a bit ad-hoc at the moment. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Kevin F. Quinn |