| 1 |
Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hey all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm just wading through a list of ~200 bugs of which some need decisions |
| 5 |
> what |
| 6 |
> should be done, whether it should be done at all or simply whether it is |
| 7 |
> a bug |
| 8 |
> or not. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Bug: SRC_URI: spaces not supported |
| 11 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102607 |
| 12 |
> Is this a 'NOTABUG' case? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Need to check the SRC_URI documentation, if it's noted there, then close |
| 15 |
it, if its not noted in the docs, add that spaces are not allowed and |
| 16 |
close it ;) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Bug: gpg: "strict" incorrectly takes priority over "severe" |
| 20 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 |
| 21 |
> What's the expected behaviour? Is it NOTABUG? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Bug: Method to monitor a package without installing/upgrading it |
| 24 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47456 |
| 25 |
> Same thing. Do we want this? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Alternative tool. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Bug: Support for a pre-compile pkg_config |
| 31 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99529 |
| 32 |
> As Jason mentioned: Is this worth the effort? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Effort is minimal, but I'm unsure of the real usefulness. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Bug: per profile package.keywords |
| 38 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55321 |
| 39 |
> Voting seems to be a bit... incomplete ;) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
This is down to a design issue. package.keywords is a repository |
| 42 |
control measure, do we currently allow profiles to mess with repos? |
| 43 |
Only via use.mask at present. profile mangling of a repository is |
| 44 |
difficult when multiple repositories are brought in because we really |
| 45 |
don't have any type of repo binding in the current source. I personally |
| 46 |
think it's an important feature, but it's difficult to not implement it |
| 47 |
in a half assed manner. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Bug: Wording "These are the packages that I would merge, in order:" |
| 51 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112439 |
| 52 |
> This needs a decision too. What wording do we prefer? Either way, the |
| 53 |
> bug should |
| 54 |
> be closed, the fix is trivial in case we want to change it. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Ummm someone just make a decision, I don't think it's that big a deal. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> Bug: global exception handling |
| 60 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28535 |
| 61 |
> Should tracebacks be thrown in the users' face or not? |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Yes, Not saying you shouldn't write code that catches exceptions and all |
| 65 |
that but writing stupid code that catches any exception and then tries |
| 66 |
to print some useful info is...not as useful. I'd prefer to have |
| 67 |
documented a bit more what functions throw ( docstrings )? so that when |
| 68 |
users use portage functionality they know what to catch. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
> Bug: /usr/lib/portage/bin/clean_locks documentation example could make |
| 71 |
> use use |
| 72 |
> DISTDIR |
| 73 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116676 |
| 74 |
> Call portageq or not? Voting time ;) |
| 75 |
nfc :0 |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
> |
| 78 |
> That should be enough for the moment. More will probably follow, |
| 79 |
> considering |
| 80 |
> that I only checked the first 60 bugs or so :/ It would be nice if we |
| 81 |
> could make |
| 82 |
> the needed decision and then close the bugs where it is |
| 83 |
> NOTABUG/INVALID/LATER. I |
| 84 |
> hate stale bug listings ;) |
| 85 |
> |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
-- |
| 88 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives