Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 15:26 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:18:40PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 11/3/19 11:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > > On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> > > > > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > > > > index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
> > > > > --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > > > > +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > > > > @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
> > > > >  	done
> > > > >  	[[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
> > > > >
> > > > > -	# Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
> > > > > -	f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
> > > > > -	if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
> > > > > -		__vecho -ne '\n'
> > > > > -		eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
> > > > > -		eqawarn "${f}"
> > > > > -		__vecho -ne '\n'
> > > > > -		die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
> > > > > -	fi
> > > > > -
> > > > >  	# Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
> > > > >  	local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
> > > > >  	for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Merged. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please revert this.  I should point out that this has been vetoed
> > > by a QA member, and is currently subject to QA vote.  Therefore, I
> > > believe you shouldn't be making rash decisions based on patches
> > > submitted by a single developer.  Especially given that so far nobody
> > > else has voiced his opinion either way, so it's 1:1.
>
> You being a qa member doesn't have a lot to do with this mgorny. you
> know there was no official policy when I posted this, and as far as I
> know there is not one now.
>

That is a really poor argument.  Something that's respected for 10+
years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm
concerned.  Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy
(at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere
in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad-
hoc because it stands in his way.

I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward
even though:

1) I've objected to the change itself,

2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list,
and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even
knowing that this is happening,

3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact
on users and that involve much effort in reverting that.

So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch
be accepted because only one person objected?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny