Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 08:19 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ~arch version of portage hs a new QA check that reports installation
> of files outside of directories that have been whitelisted [1]. The
> current whitelist includes:
>
> directories common to / and /usr
> ================================
> bin lib lib32 lib64 libx32 sbin
>
> top level directories
> ================================
> boot dev etc opt srv usr var
>
> /usr level directories
> ================================
> include libexec share src
>
> /usr/share/doc level directories
> ================================
> /usr/share/doc/${PF}
>
> The first bug report [2] is for qt-core, which installs documentation
> into  /usr/share/doc/${PN}-${PV} instead of /usr/share/doc/${PF} (${PF}
> includes ebuild revision such as -r1, -r2, and so on).

No, it doesn't.  There's no /usr/share/doc/qtcore-5.11.1 on my system.

> I have created a patch that will allow ebuilds to whitelist directories
> by setting a QA_INSTALL_PATHS variable [3], however @mgorny said:

@mgorny was seriously concerned about trigger-happy patch authors who
find it urgent to silence QA warnings without even bothering to properly
discuss the problem.  And is continuously concerned about people who
want something but don't bother starting the discussion, and instead
rely on somebody else to start the discussion, even without having
the appropriate knowledge on what the problem is in the first place.

In other words, this is something that should be discussed on a case-by-
case basis.  Not the usual Gentoo thing of 'I don't like this QA
warning, let's silence it quickly and go on ignoring everyone, whether
my package is broken or not'.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny