| 1 |
On Monday 27 February 2006 18:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <ramereth@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE="1" rm -fr / in global |
| 6 |
> | > scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval |
| 7 |
> | > to fix it? |
| 8 |
> | |
| 9 |
> | Use some common sense when showing an example please. We all know |
| 10 |
> | that something that stupid needs to be delt with quickly. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If we all recognise that level of stupidity, please explain how the |
| 13 |
> heck this got into the tree: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/sys-apps/bootstrap |
| 16 |
>_cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Probably because although it isn't a good ebuild it still works and does |
| 19 |
not violate the sandbox. While it does things in the wrong way/place it |
| 20 |
does not do the wrong things. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I do not think that anyone would argue against QA (or other developers) |
| 23 |
fixing urgent big tree breakages. (and rm -rf / would certainly qualify). |
| 24 |
What I see as the argument is that QA should show a degree of flexibility |
| 25 |
in it's policies, and not just enforce because of the policy. This |
| 26 |
especially in those cases where there is no way to provide the ebuild |
| 27 |
without breaking policy, or doing so would mean a greater inconvenience |
| 28 |
to the users. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Paul |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 36 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives