1 |
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
| 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
| > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> |
4 |
| > wrote: |
5 |
| > | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented |
6 |
| > | here: |
7 |
| > | |
8 |
| > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable&part=3&chap=1 |
9 |
| |
10 |
| > No, the whole thing is policy. |
11 |
| |
12 |
| No, it isn't. |
13 |
|
14 |
'Fraid it is. Everything in the devrel handbook that isn't explicitly |
15 |
marked as a guideline is policy. |
16 |
|
17 |
| And silently sticking parts of unofficial gentoo |
18 |
| devmanual into official Gentoo docs, and then silently turning them |
19 |
| into a "policy" enforced under QA disguise is a bad very practice, |
20 |
| and pretending that this has been in the mentioned _howto_ (not |
21 |
| policy) for a long time as just plain silly. Since you haven't |
22 |
| answered the question in one of my previous emails at all, let me ask |
23 |
| again: |
24 |
| |
25 |
| When and where has been the following change discussed and who |
26 |
| approved that? |
27 |
| |
28 |
| http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?r1=1.25&r2=1.26&root=gentoo |
29 |
|
30 |
Wouldn't know. That was nothing to do with me. I just wrote the |
31 |
original text (or actually, that might not even have been me). It |
32 |
finding its way into the policy docs was devrel's doing. |
33 |
|
34 |
| > | Moreover, the cited howto is wrong, since it will break |
35 |
| > | built_with_use checks |
36 |
| |
37 |
| > No, that's a separate issue. |
38 |
| |
39 |
| No, it isn't. If you want something to have as a policy, it needs to |
40 |
| be error-free, reasonably applicable and not doing more harm than if |
41 |
| it isn't applied at all. And implementing such stuff requires a |
42 |
| proper discussion, considering the consequences and some sort of |
43 |
| consent among affected developers. (Also, that howto example is less |
44 |
| than fortunate/clear, like some user noted in Bug 124401). |
45 |
|
46 |
built_with_use isn't a question of conflicting USE flags. It's a |
47 |
separate question of dependency resolution, and in this situation it |
48 |
*can't* be solved using the method that's been standard for four years |
49 |
or more. |
50 |
|
51 |
| > | The howto also doesn't apply to cases like |
52 |
| > | recode vs. mysql, because that's a completely different |
53 |
| > | functionality, you can't exactly choose which one is better on |
54 |
| > | behalf of the user. |
55 |
| |
56 |
| > No, it does apply. |
57 |
| |
58 |
| No, it doesn't, you can't reasonably favour one of two completely |
59 |
| different functionalities based on some automagic |
60 |
| assumption/developer discretion. That doesn't benefit users in any |
61 |
| way and just produces unexpected results (hey, I explicitely enabled |
62 |
| "recode" use flag and php compiled without, the ebuild is broken, |
63 |
| fix0r it!) |
64 |
|
65 |
By all means warn the user. There's nothing in policy disallowing that. |
66 |
|
67 |
| No, noone should enforce a policy that |
68 |
| |
69 |
| - doesn't exist (see above) |
70 |
|
71 |
The whole devrel handbook is policy, except where otherwise noted. See |
72 |
Mike's reply. |
73 |
|
74 |
| - hasn't been discussed properly and approved (see above) |
75 |
|
76 |
Nothing in the devrel handbook was discussed properly or approved. |
77 |
|
78 |
| - it's consequences haven't been considered wrt whether its benefits |
79 |
| overweight the negatives and whether is useful at all. |
80 |
|
81 |
This one doesn't rule out the policy item in question. |
82 |
|
83 |
-- |
84 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) |
85 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
86 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |