| 1 |
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 21:40 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in the |
| 3 |
> tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
From a discussion in #-portage, I understand that ferringb has already |
| 6 |
told the QA team that file clashes in distfiles is legitimate, and has |
| 7 |
no interest in implementing DEST_PREFIX support to tackle the problem. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Unfortunately, I don't have a mailing list post or an IRC log of that |
| 10 |
discussion between ferringb and the QA team to reference here :( |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Sure. And if upstream won't even cooperate to the extent of renaming a |
| 13 |
> file, how do you expect them to react when we require something less |
| 14 |
> trvial? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's still not the issue here, no matter how you try and re-introduce it |
| 17 |
to the discussion. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> It's so bad a problem that you even had to document it in the user |
| 20 |
> guide and tell people to use some nasty hacked workaround. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
"so bad a problem"? "nasty hacked workaround"? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't understand why you feel the need to be so alarmist over this. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> We don't have a legitimate demonstration package, and we're not going |
| 27 |
> to go and ask the Portage team to make code changes to support |
| 28 |
> hypothetical speculation. You're the only one with a test case here. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I don't agree - you're the ones making a mountain out of a grain of sand |
| 31 |
- but anyway. I've had a chat in #-portage, and there's no support for |
| 32 |
adding DEST_PREFIX into Portage at this time. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> | Please stop spreading FUD, and libelling my name here. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> You've closed that bug five times now without fixing it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Yes I have. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
I carefully considered the QA team's concerns, and the proposed |
| 41 |
solutions, and felt that - in this specific case - the bug doesn't have |
| 42 |
enough merit. And then the bug degenerated into the QA team being |
| 43 |
repeatedly asked - and unable to provide - any evidence that they're |
| 44 |
entitled to push for the package to be removed. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
What's your excuse? :) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Best regards, |
| 49 |
Stu |
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 52 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 53 |
http://blog.stuartherbert.com/ |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 56 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 57 |
-- |
Archives