| 1 |
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
| > PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a |
| 3 |
| > revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users |
| 4 |
| > will still have the old broken package installed too. This is |
| 5 |
| > especially relevant for security issues, but also applies to other |
| 6 |
| > kinds of fix. |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| Not including the revision into the SLOT can break the apps by |
| 9 |
| removing the needed files from a live site... I still can't see any |
| 10 |
| *QA* violation there. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Again, that's a design flaw. It's an eclass that's abusing SLOT, thus |
| 13 |
it's a QA issue. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
| Yeah, it checks for that since that's the way the eclass is designed. |
| 16 |
| You can't declare a slot in a kernel ebuild either. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
One is a design flaw. The other is not. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
| Well, starts to be boring - so, either come with something valid from |
| 21 |
| QA standpoint or stop now. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This is a valid issue from a QA standpoint. This is also why I'm not |
| 24 |
going to waste my time doing a proper list -- rather than addressing |
| 25 |
issues, they are being passed off as irrelevant or even features. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) |
| 29 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 30 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives