| 1 |
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:53, Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> Here is my updated version after some feedback from people: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> * In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate, |
| 5 |
> the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem. |
| 6 |
> * The QA team may also offer to fix obvious typos and similar minor |
| 7 |
> issues, and silence from the package maintainers can be taken as |
| 8 |
> agreement in such situations. |
| 9 |
> * In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not |
| 10 |
> break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting. |
| 11 |
> The package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that a |
| 12 |
> decision is made by the council. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
one thing i dont think we give enough emphasis to is that our tools arent |
| 15 |
perfect ... sometimes we utilize QA violations to work around portage |
| 16 |
limitations ... if you want to see some really sweet hacks, review any of the |
| 17 |
toolchain related ebuilds and the hacks ive had to add to get cross-compiling |
| 18 |
to the usuable state that it is today. a handful of them would fall under |
| 19 |
the 'severe' category i'm sure. and if we want to use the lovely php |
| 20 |
example, personally i think that given portage's current limitations, the |
| 21 |
latest dev-lang/php ebuild is probably one of the best solutions that could |
| 22 |
have been developed, thanks Stuart for all the flak you've had to take over |
| 23 |
this. also, many games ebuilds break the 'non-interactive' policy by |
| 24 |
displaying licensing and making the user hit "Y" because portage lacks checks |
| 25 |
where the user explicitly states what licenses they accept. |
| 26 |
-mike |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives