| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:16 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> This is retarded, stop wasting my time. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
There is nothing retarded about shared /home directories. They're |
| 7 |
pretty common in the real world. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> >> I've already got responses from two QA members. This thread is pretty |
| 10 |
> >> hard to miss. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Well, then why go posting stuff like "guess we'll be triggering a |
| 13 |
> > warning after all?" |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If these two things are logically connected, I don't see it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you're working with QA to change the QA checks, then you won't be |
| 18 |
triggering warnings. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> >> I'm working on a patch for the install-qa-check.d check |
| 21 |
> >> and I'm sure I'll get more when I post it. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Are you just allowing it to not create the directory, or are we |
| 24 |
> > considering patching it to allow creating stuff under /home? It would |
| 25 |
> > seem that the policy would also need updating in that case, but |
| 26 |
> > probably not the former. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The patch will make an exception for acct-user packages only; for /home, |
| 29 |
> /home/${PN}, and /home/${PN}/.keep*. In other words, it makes things |
| 30 |
> work exactly how they did before the GLEP81 eclass started keepdir'ing |
| 31 |
> the home directory. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
IMO this isn't the right direction to go in, but we can always put it |
| 34 |
on the council agenda. Maintaining the status quo (pre-QA-check) in |
| 35 |
the interim isn't unreasonable, nor is keeping your package behavior |
| 36 |
as it is for now. Obviously this issue has been around for some time. |
| 37 |
I realize that you didn't invent it. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I guess this is the sort of thing that people will tend to disagree |
| 40 |
on. At least Gentoo doesn't force this nonsense down my throat. :) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Rich |
Archives