| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:02:57 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in |
| 6 |
> | > the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right. |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | The general consensus over the years has been that if something |
| 9 |
> | cannot be fixed due to portage problems, then we do what necessary to |
| 10 |
> | warn users about it, but keep the package. In this regard also look |
| 11 |
> | at various dependency cycles, and/or use flag dependencies. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The general consensus has been to implement the best available |
| 14 |
> workaround, if one is doable, and just remove the thing where it's not. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Where is this general consensus documented (other than an email sent out |
| 17 |
a few days ago). I'd have to go with Paul on this assumption. I don't |
| 18 |
see the problem with keeping a package such as stu's in portage as long |
| 19 |
as it doesn't affect other users. Do you honesty expect that we will get |
| 20 |
a sterile tree out of this? Please focus your QA efforts are more |
| 21 |
important and visible issues. Going on a witch hunt to fix one problem |
| 22 |
compared to the bigger issues we know we have is simply silly. This is |
| 23 |
really starting to look like a power issue rather than a QA issue. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 27 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
--- |
| 30 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 31 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives