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"
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:37:29PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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,
You have the right to object, as does anyone, but what I take very strong issue with is your tone and your way of dealing with the situation. An objection with another alternative would have gone a lot better with me.
> 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,
You rudely attacked me and accused me of something I wasn't trying to do. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/d5be93dc7767f2256041eb2cb54b8b38 Then floppym responded and advised again that this is the place to send patches for portage. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/af686e9d2d94a9b940f8f71efdf73b2b So, that is why this point wasn't really considered.
> 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact > on users and that involve much effort in reverting that.
Maybe the way around this is to stop building static libs for the ebuilds that call gen_usr_ldscript. Once that happens and gen_usr_ldscript isn't called in the tree any more, this patch could be applied.
> So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch > be accepted because only one person objected?
This is one of our problems as a distro. there isn't a way to measure concensus. I also don't like your tone in your response to Zac merging the patch. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/1abfd0499e514b7d6b70b709e9e3ae18 If I say out here that since I'm a council member I'm above you and zac should listen to me and apply the patch is that appropriate? I imagine not, so I feel the same way about you bringing your qa membership into the discussion. In my opinion, all that kind of thing leads to is people becoming angry. I'm going to ask you to close https://bugs.gentoo.org/699254. I honestly do not feel that this is an appropriate way to deal with this situation. William

Attachments

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

Replies