Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o>
To: Mike Frysinger <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:15:51
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role by Mike Frysinger
1 28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
3 > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
4 >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
5 >> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
6 >> > broken.
7 >>
8 >> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you
9 >> use the webapp eclass, setting SLOT="0" is incorrect. There are some cases
10 >> in which it's just fine. Until FEATURES="mindreader" is implemented, how is
11 >> the eclass to know what you're trying to do? So it prints a warning and
12 >> doesn't die. Number of angry users storming bugs.g.o - 0.
14 > why do you need to be a mindreader ? the user requested they control the
15 > package, thus it isnt a bug, so dont issue a warning
16 > -mike
18 Sure, and when *ebuild* requested it instead, then portage will be
19 automagically informed. So yeah, we can implement yet another variable into
20 the eclass, and we can do tons of other magic voodoo about three lines of
21 eclass that noone has ever noticed until today, and the whole thing can be a
22 lot more complex for sure. Sorry, I call this a complete waste of time.
24 --
26 jakub


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>