Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:34:48
Message-Id: CAJ0EP40GbMdHo1_6HpWd4_cRJBHGRrwV50YT0WOPbyx3s3=LkQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc by Zac Medico
1 On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:19 AM Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Hi all,
4 >
5 > The ~arch version of portage hs a new QA check that reports installation
6 > of files outside of directories that have been whitelisted [1]. The
7 > current whitelist includes:
8 >
9 > directories common to / and /usr
10 > ================================
11 > bin lib lib32 lib64 libx32 sbin
12 >
13 > top level directories
14 > ================================
15 > boot dev etc opt srv usr var
16 >
17 > /usr level directories
18 > ================================
19 > include libexec share src
20 >
21 > /usr/share/doc level directories
22 > ================================
23 > /usr/share/doc/${PF}
24 >
25 > The first bug report [2] is for qt-core, which installs documentation
26 > into /usr/share/doc/${PN}-${PV} instead of /usr/share/doc/${PF} (${PF}
27 > includes ebuild revision such as -r1, -r2, and so on).
28 >
29 > I have created a patch that will allow ebuilds to whitelist directories
30 > by setting a QA_INSTALL_PATHS variable [3], however @mgorny said:
31 >
32 > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:34 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
33 > > QA NAK on this. The purpose of QA checks is not for ebuilds to
34 > > officially override them because histerical raisins.
35
36 I don't think QA has the final word on features that are added to the
37 package manager. They can prevent abuse of those features by ebuilds
38 in the repository, however.
39
40 Personally, I think compatibility with historical code is a perfectly
41 valid reason to make an exception here.