| 1 |
On 12/07/14 08:18, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
>>> I will also be happy to work on replacing |
| 3 |
>>> the new versions of original sys-devel/gcc completely. With QA process |
| 4 |
>>> against toolchain.eclass if necessary. |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>> Let's get the list of QA issues so I at least can work towards a |
| 7 |
>> toolchain-r1.eclass if you're not interested in going that way. Also, I |
| 8 |
>> take the QA issues seriously, but threatening a QA intervention against |
| 9 |
>> toolchain and then acting by forking is heavy handed. QA actions |
| 10 |
>> against the current codebase is understandable. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> So to sum, I'd like to see the QA issues (and others) address in the |
| 13 |
>> current approache and toolchain.eclass. Since we can make mistakes and |
| 14 |
>> since toolchain is fragile, I suggest a toolchain-r1.eclass where we can |
| 15 |
>> test (just change the inheritance in gcc ebuilds for testing) and |
| 16 |
>> finally, when we're happy, do the switcheroo. |
| 17 |
> First QA issue: toolchain.eclass is intrusive and makes ebuilds hard to |
| 18 |
> understand and track. If you can remove it and make gcc into proper |
| 19 |
> ebuilds that can get revision-level changes, we can discuss. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Hey! why don't I join QA so I can also "fix" eclasses that I find |
| 23 |
"intrusive". Let's not make QA the final refuge of those who want to |
| 24 |
push through their preferences. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
To proceed forward, you have bugs open against toolchain.eclass. The |
| 27 |
practice is to submit the patches to this list for review. If after |
| 28 |
awards you have community support, commit despite the maintainer's |
| 29 |
objections. Having obtained community support, you will have much more |
| 30 |
legitimacy against reverts. I can't speak for the whole council, but I |
| 31 |
would support you under such circumstances. I cannot support a position |
| 32 |
where QA simply asserts itself. When/if an appeal percolates up to the |
| 33 |
council, I will side with the maintainer under the argument that the |
| 34 |
commit to the eclass was not sufficiently reviewed. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 38 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 39 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 40 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 41 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives