Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Cc: qa@g.o, zmedico@g.o, mgorny@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 10:15:32
Message-Id: 20191104101522.GA8273@linux1.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from / by "Michał Górny"
1 On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:37:29PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > That is a really poor argument. Something that's respected for 10+
3 > years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm
4 > concerned. Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy
5 > (at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere
6 > in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad-
7 > hoc because it stands in his way.
8 >
9 > I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward
10 > even though:
11 >
12 > 1) I've objected to the change itself,
14 You have the right to object, as does anyone, but what I take very
15 strong issue with is your tone and your way of dealing with the
16 situation. An objection with another alternative would have gone a lot
17 better with me.
19 > 2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list,
20 > and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even
21 > knowing that this is happening,
23 You rudely attacked me and accused me of something I wasn't
24 trying to do.
28 Then floppym responded and advised again that this is the place to send
29 patches for portage.
33 So, that is why this point wasn't really considered.
35 > 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact
36 > on users and that involve much effort in reverting that.
38 Maybe the way around this is to stop building static libs for the
39 ebuilds that call gen_usr_ldscript. Once that happens and
40 gen_usr_ldscript isn't called in the tree any more, this patch could be
41 applied.
43 > So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch
44 > be accepted because only one person objected?
46 This is one of our problems as a distro. there isn't a way to
47 measure concensus.
49 I also don't like your tone in your response to Zac merging the patch.
53 If I say out here that since I'm a council member I'm above you and zac
54 should listen to me and apply the patch is that appropriate? I imagine
55 not, so I feel the same way about you bringing your qa membership into
56 the discussion.
57 In my opinion, all that kind of thing leads to is people becoming angry.
59 I'm going to ask you to close I honestly
60 do not feel that this is an appropriate way to deal with this situation.
62 William


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