Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-crypt/gpa: gpa-0.9.3.ebuild ChangeLog gpa-0.9.1_pre20100416-r1.ebuild

[Alec Warner]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
>> That's all I'm saying.  It's being made a whole lot less pleasant that it
>> might be... for what reason?  Just to satisfy someone's ego that they're
>> right and can /force/ compliance?  Yuck!
>
> Honestly, while I might agree with that sentiment on some of these
> threads, my only complaint with Ciaran's original response was that he
> could have been a bit more direct with his concern.  Rather than
> stating that EXTRA_* does not exist as far as ebuilds go, he could
> have just stated that PMS does not allow these variables to be used by
> an ebuild.
>
> However, the reply to that email makes it clear that even though it
> was unstated Ciaran's meaning was understood.
>
> Sure, he didn't get into the why, but I'm not sure I'd expect that.
> I'd probably state it, but I'm probably the second-most-verbose person
> on this list.  :)
>
> If somebody filed a bug against my package and pointed out that
> something was illegal per PMS, probably the first thing I'd do is read
> it to fully understand the situation, and then if I had a concern I'd
> probably ask via irc/private email/etc.  That is as much to avoid
> making a fool out of myself in public, but also because when somebody
> who is obviously knowledgeable points out something they consider a
> flaw, it isn't a bad idea to give their concern full consideration.
>
> Sure, if PMS is wrong it ought to be fixed, but the whole point of
> having specifications is that you don't toss them the moment you don't
> like what they say.  Then again, I work on regulated software in my
> real job, and even if the spec is wrong changing it still involves a
> process - you don't just ignore it (any behavior in violation of the
> spec is an automatic bug - even if the bug is to fix the spec - and
> unless pretty trivial is justification to prevent release (often this
> is done anyway since it is usually less work to just fix the problem
> than justify to the world not doing it)).

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but many developers in Gentoo
dislike process ;)

>
> In any case, it is best to not take these sorts of things personally
> all around.  Most of us are here because our perverse tastes consider
> this stuff fun!  :)  Might as well keep it that way...
>
> Rich
>