| 1 |
16.02.2015 14:43, Patrick Lauer пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11 |
| 9 |
>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> Removed: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild |
| 11 |
>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>> metadata.xml |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>> Log: |
| 15 |
>>>>> QA: Remove package with invalid copyright |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people. if |
| 18 |
>>>> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug. putting a "QA" |
| 19 |
>>>> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't |
| 22 |
>>> let you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me |
| 23 |
>>> to believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it? |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman |
| 26 |
>> full` yourself. no fatal errors. in fact you can see the generated |
| 27 |
>> tags in my commit message. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Well, AutoRepoman triggered on it. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Testing for fun on a random ebuild: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> RepoMan scours the neighborhood... |
| 34 |
> ebuild.badheader 1 |
| 35 |
> dev-db/hyperdex/hyperdex-1.6.0-r1.ebuild: Invalid Gentoo Copyright on line: |
| 36 |
> 1 |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Which again leads me to the question: |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Why are these checks not properly fatal? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> (And I really do not like having to repeat myself ...) |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is |
| 47 |
>> complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in |
| 48 |
>> Gentoo is completely unenforceable. we have no CLA. this was |
| 49 |
>> patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box. |
| 50 |
>> -mike |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong) I opted for the |
| 55 |
> easy way out - remove offending bits. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Have fun, |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> Patrick |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Your logic is almost flawless. Almost, because you forgot the valuable |
| 64 |
part of our policy - notifying maintainer. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
If your package will be dropped because you violate QA rules - well, |
| 67 |
things can happen. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
But if it will be done silently, i am pretty sure that you will be |
| 70 |
angry. I would be, definitely. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
I am not asking for justification of every action, that QA doing by |
| 73 |
maintainer - that would be totally wrong. Just follow our policy: |
| 74 |
"Serious issue -> fix and after that notify maintainer". |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
-- |
| 77 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 78 |
Gentoo developer |
| 79 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 80 |
Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead |
| 81 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |
Archives