| 1 |
On 11/4/19 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time, |
| 5 |
> does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage |
| 6 |
> team? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the |
| 10 |
time it would take to vote on each of these policies formally, document |
| 11 |
them on the wiki, and then move the related checks to ::gentoo/metadata |
| 12 |
where other package managers can benefit from them (and where they can't |
| 13 |
be unilaterally nuked). Having a comprehensive list of policies will |
| 14 |
also help developers who want to Do The Right Thing and who read up on |
| 15 |
these things proactively. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In this case, whether or not this is "policy" is beside the point. No |
| 18 |
one else wants to remove this check because it's useful and prevents |
| 19 |
developers from accidentally dumping garbage onto users' (often limited) |
| 20 |
root filesystems. Some people don't like to do their jobs, though, and |
| 21 |
for those developers it's a lot easier to delete the check and make |
| 22 |
things worse for everybody than it would be to package software |
| 23 |
correctly. Just Say No. That's what QA is for. But again, it would be |
| 24 |
easier to veto these obviously-stupid things if they've been documented. |
Archives