| 1 |
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> 28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then |
| 4 |
> > they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the |
| 5 |
> > subject |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it |
| 8 |
> > into a proper QA check by having the class see where files were installed |
| 9 |
> > and then warn/abort if certain conditions are met |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > there's no reason for the user to see this crap |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yeah, and there's no reason for user to see USE_EXPAND QA notice crap, |
| 14 |
> eclass inherited illegally crap and a couple of others - this isn't going |
| 15 |
> anywhere. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
unrelated ... that is a portage limitation that has deeper work going on |
| 18 |
around it to resolve the issue properly ... this is an eclass limitation that |
| 19 |
can be resolved now |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> You are trying to solve something that noone ever complained about. Why not |
| 22 |
> rather solve stuff like ebuilds that depend unconditionally on arts, but |
| 23 |
> because they inherit kde eclass they get bogus arts use flag from the |
| 24 |
> eclass. This is an issue that's truly confusing and that people are filing |
| 25 |
> bugs about. There's the difference between doing something useful and |
| 26 |
> wasting time on an artificially invented issue. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
right, so from now on people shouldnt bother fixing issues until a bug is |
| 29 |
filed, that way we know someone actually cares enough to have the issue |
| 30 |
resolved |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user |
| 33 |
files a report at bugs.gentoo.org |
| 34 |
-mike |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives