Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:26:40
Message-Id: 545032b4-c3bc-d5cc-6d9e-02db4bdcfc51@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc by Zac Medico
1 On 10/03/2018 12:38 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
2 >
3 > Until this QA check has adjustable whitelist support, we can consider it
4 > an unstable work in progress.
5
6 Has anyone said why these things need to be in ${PN}-${PV} rather than
7 ${PF}?
8
9 If they don't need to be in ${PN}-${PV} in the first place, then the QA
10 check is just doing exactly what it's supposed to. If, on the other
11 hand, there's a good reason for something to install docs outside of
12 ${PF}, then we should just fix the check (and our policy) to allow it.
13
14 (A whitelist is IMO the wrong approach, the QA check should never report
15 "correct" things in the first place.)

Replies