Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] QA Roles v2

[Jakub Moc]

3.3.2006, 6:31:17, Mark Loeser wrote:

> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> said:
>> one thing i dont think we give enough emphasis to is that our tools arent
>> perfect ... sometimes we utilize QA violations to work around portage
>> limitations ... if you want to see some really sweet hacks, review any of the
>> toolchain related ebuilds and the hacks ive had to add to get cross-compiling
>> to the usuable state that it is today.  a handful of them would fall under
>> the 'severe' category i'm sure.  and if we want to use the lovely php
>> example, personally i think that given portage's current limitations, the
>> latest dev-lang/php ebuild is probably one of the best solutions that could
>> have been developed, thanks Stuart for all the flak you've had to take over
>> this.  also, many games ebuilds break the 'non-interactive' policy by
>> displaying licensing and making the user hit "Y" because portage lacks checks
>> where the user explicitly states what licenses they accept.

> This somewhat touchs on what pauldv mentioned earlier, that we will
> acknowledge when no better possible solution is available, and some
> "workaround" is needed.  As he also suggested, we should keep a list of
> these in the form of open bugs so that we can get a better solution
> somewhere in the long-term.


Please, until something is clarified/some consent reached, avoid changing
the docs w/ funny stuff like "just flip a coin"...

http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?root=gentoo&r1=1.31&r2=1.32

What's the above again? QA policy? How does user benefit from flipping a
coin wrt choosing a functionality? Sigh...  :/


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@g.o
 GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)