Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:13:24
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role by Ciaran McCreesh
1 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
4 > Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
6 > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
7 > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
9 > emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
10 > fi
12 No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you point out
13 to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours ago, saving us from
14 all the eclass formating, slotting and ewarn blurb. The above needs to be
15 fixed, period.
17 To return to the original topic - focus your QA efforts on real issues. Same
18 goes for that non-interactivity stuff. QA that serves no other purpose than
19 inventing problems to enforce an inevitably hackish solution (there's no
20 good one because the needed tools are not available) is not useful at all.
21 There's nothing useful in inventing policies that create more problems than
22 they solve and that are forcing shitty bash code into the tree to work
23 around missing features.
25 Portage is a tool to install and manage packages, and serves no good purpose
26 on its own. Crippling installed packages and their available features for
27 the sole purpose of having nice ebuild tree with clean bash code is not what
28 QA is for. Improving the whole process is fine and welcome, as long as it
29 doesn't unnecessarily interfere with the desired outcome. Users need to
30 install some software they want to use and need its features, portage and
31 ebuids are only the means to do that, not a holy cow.
34 --
36 jakub


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>