Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 17:23:55
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-sound/umurmur: metadata.xml ChangeLog by Tom Wijsman
1 > The discussion is based on some questions that are hard to agree on:
2 >
3 > 1. How much of a problem is an unused USE flag in metadata.xml?
5 Cosmetic issue. No functional impact.
7 > 2. Should such repoman warnings be fixed? By whom? When? How?
9 Yes. You see it, you fix it.
11 Not fixing cosmetic issues (cf. compiler warnings) leads to more and
12 more noise until real issues are just drowned in the noise; the only way
13 to achieve excellence (in terms of quality) is discipline in adhering to
14 rules and standards obsessively.
16 If there are (too) many false positives we should add proper annotations
17 to silence repoman ...
19 > 3. Can USE flags actually be removed from stable ebuilds?
21 Usually removing stable ebuilds makes useflags "disappear", rarely does
22 masking stuff (e.g. old cups) lead to the disappearance of useflags as
23 they would now be broken
25 > 4. ...
27 Do we need to discuss this?
29 No. It's an amazing waste of time, almost as if we had no real problems
30 to focus on.
31 >
32 > Because this can yield quite some bike-shedding; the alternative "out of
33 > the box thinking" package.use.mask solution satisfies both parties,
34 > which renders that discussion unnecessary. Nobody has objected this.
36 That is a "fix" specific to this package alone, in the general case it
37 is not valid.