Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision

[Stuart Herbert]

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 14:19 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Two ways this one can occur.

[snip]

Third way ... upstream is a provider of commercial software, and
releases different editions of the same software with identical
filenames.

> Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're
> screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree.

There's two more important issues here that need to be cleaned up.  

I have the QA team on bug #123926 asserting that they have the right to
tell me to remove packages from the tree, because of basename $SRC_URI
filename collisions.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no policy document in existence
empowering the QA team to order package maintainers to remove packages
from Portage.  I've asked the team to provide a copy if one exists, but
I haven't seen one yet.  The team have (twice now) instead stated that
the email at the top of this thread is their authority.

Also, I cannot find this SRC_URI rule (as being applied by the QA team)
in any official Gentoo policy document.  I'm very concerned about the
judgement of a QA team that is choosing to try and apply policies that
it hasn't documented, and which haven't been through a formal approval
process such as GLEPs.

I'll contact the council separately, and ask that they look at two
things:

a) What the QA team is and isn't empowered to do
b) The approval process that the QA team must follow before imposing
tree-wide changes on other developers.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                         stuart@g.o
Gentoo Developer                                  http://www.gentoo.org/
                                          http://blog.stuartherbert.com/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--