Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:32:23
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
3 >
4 > wrote:
5 > | Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will
6 > | be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do
7 > | agree with them though that the distribution should not be held back
8 > | by missing features in portage. Especially since those features have
9 > | been missing (recognized as such) for ages.
10 >
11 > So until then, it's perfectly OK to screw over our users and fellow
12 > developers by committing any arbitrary mess to the tree and claiming
13 > that it's alright because Portage doesn't offer a perfect alternative?
15 No, not in an arbitrary way. Those fixes should be discussed, and the path
16 of least problems chosen. Waiting on portage to catch on however has
17 shown to be a dead end. One of the reasons that webapp-config was
18 developed is exactly because of the fact that portage does not offer
19 certain features (although I don't know whether portage should offer
20 these).
22 What I mean is that if portage is a limiting factor, we should try to find
23 a solution that allows incorporation of the package or feature instead of
24 not having it. Doing so is only alright when it has been properly
25 discussed. It is not alright to just introduce mess. There is indeed no
26 strict line between the two. That's where QA comes in. To make the
27 judgement.
29 Paul
31 --
32 Paul de Vrieze
33 Gentoo Developer
34 Mail: pauldv@g.o
35 Homepage: