Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nils Freydank <holgersson@××××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: OT: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] profiles: drop USE=cracklib from base/make.defaults.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:16:30
Message-Id: 7003870.b6ckxZ7uMD@pygoscelis
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] profiles: drop USE=cracklib from base/make.defaults. by R0b0t1
1 Am Mittwoch, 27. Dezember 2017, 22:33:03 CET schrieb R0b0t1:
2 > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
3 > > As he said, he contactedd the maintainers in ample time, so I would say
4 > > that since they didn't respond he went ahead in good faith. I'll get the
5 > > link later, but as I recall, the dev manual recommends a 2-4 week wait
6 > > for maintainers not responding then we can assume that what we are doing
7 > > is ok.
8 >
9 > This assumes there is some pressing need for the change to take place,
10 > which I am not sure there is. I can understand wanting to make the
11 > change for consistency's sake, but the feature is important enough
12 > that I think a suitable replacement should explicitly be found before
13 > continuing. E.g. affirmative feedback from all affected packages.
14
15 Often a fix timeline is the only way to achieve any responses - or at least
16 get stuff done, even if the matter itself is not urgent at all. In this
17 specific case the points Michael had were quite clear, and the timespan of
18 two month was long enough to react somehow (at least in the context of typical
19 periods in Gentoo, e.g. last rite/removal period of 30 days).
20
21 On topic: There are some users including myself that find cracklib mostly
22 annoying. I use strong passwords (or ssh keys only) where I can, and cracklib
23 annoys me with the request to set "secure passwords" for a container
24 playground, where I want root:test as login credentials.
25 Beside that the point that profiles in general should contain as least USE as
26 possible (see the bug report for that).
27
28 > Enforcement of rules or Gentoo development guidelines does not happen
29 > consistently, and the times when rules are enforced "for consistency's
30 > sake" seem completely arbitrary. There seems to be no extant problems
31 > caused by the flag as set, so why focus on this specifically?
32
33 To me these times look as they're based upon agreement between the involved
34 parties, and in itself consistently, e.g. at least 30 days masking before
35 removal out of the tree, or in this case at least two to four weeks to let
36 others respond.
37
38 > There is a lot of discussion of not burdening developers with
39 > pointless talk or changes. If that is a goal, then why is this posting
40 > receiving so many replies?
41
42 With all due respect, your posting didn't bring any new relevant aspects into
43 this thread on this mailing list with the explicit focus and topic of Gentoo
44 development, and might be exactly part of the "pointless talk" you mention.
45
46 My one isn't better; I just want to point that out to you, because you tend to
47 write messages with this kind of meta questions about the cause of things.
48
49 If you want to discuss this, I'd prefer another place than this list.
50
51 Regards,
52 Nils
53
54 --
55 GPG fingerprint: '00EF D31F 1B60 D5DB ADB8 31C1 C0EC E696 0E54 475B'
56 Nils Freydank

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies