| 1 |
On 10/01/2018 08:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 08:19 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I have created a patch that will allow ebuilds to whitelist directories |
| 4 |
>> by setting a QA_INSTALL_PATHS variable [3], however @mgorny said: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> @mgorny was seriously concerned about trigger-happy patch authors who |
| 7 |
> find it urgent to silence QA warnings without even bothering to properly |
| 8 |
> discuss the problem. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Discussion takes time, and I'm a very busy person, sorry about that. |
| 11 |
Anyway, eventually we are forced to discuss those issues that really matter. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> And is continuously concerned about people who |
| 14 |
> want something but don't bother starting the discussion, and instead |
| 15 |
> rely on somebody else to start the discussion, even without having |
| 16 |
> the appropriate knowledge on what the problem is in the first place. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> In other words, this is something that should be discussed on a case-by- |
| 19 |
> case basis. Not the usual Gentoo thing of 'I don't like this QA |
| 20 |
> warning, let's silence it quickly and go on ignoring everyone, whether |
| 21 |
> my package is broken or not'. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Maybe we should implement a policy requiring gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 24 |
proposals for QA_INSTALL_PATHS usage in gentoo ebuilds (similar to the |
| 25 |
policy for news items and eclass changes)? |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives