Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:16:54
Message-Id: 20060228170954.37396045@snowdrop.home
In Reply to: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role by Jakub Moc
1 On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote:
2 | > PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
3 | > revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
4 | > will still have the old broken package installed too. This is
5 | > especially relevant for security issues, but also applies to other
6 | > kinds of fix.
7 |
8 | Not including the revision into the SLOT can break the apps by
9 | removing the needed files from a live site... I still can't see any
10 | *QA* violation there.
12 Again, that's a design flaw. It's an eclass that's abusing SLOT, thus
13 it's a QA issue.
15 | Yeah, it checks for that since that's the way the eclass is designed.
16 | You can't declare a slot in a kernel ebuild either.
18 One is a design flaw. The other is not.
20 | Well, starts to be boring - so, either come with something valid from
21 | QA standpoint or stop now.
23 This is a valid issue from a QA standpoint. This is also why I'm not
24 going to waste my time doing a proper list -- rather than addressing
25 issues, they are being passed off as irrelevant or even features.
27 --
28 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
29 Mail : ciaranm at
30 Web :


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o>