Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 19:26:52
Message-Id: 20191104192643.GA8436@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy? by Michael Orlitzky
1 On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:07:43AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2 > On 11/4/19 11:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > >
4 > > I did request a QA vote to confirm it. William demands that I close it
5 >
6 > Take a page out of the WilliamH playbook and completely ignore him.
7
8 As I said on the other list, the ignoring was mostly due to mgorny's
9 rude personal attack which is pending before the proctors.
10
11 Asking that the qa issue be closed was because there is another way
12 around it, which was supported in a conversation I had with the qa
13 lead.
14
15 That way is not building static libraries at all. If we go that way as
16 a distro the support for forcing static libraries into /usr/lib* is not
17 needed because we would just not allow static libraries.
18
19 William

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy? Michael Jones <gentoo@×××××××.com>