| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/29/2013 01:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> No, it does not concern a single package only. This is about making |
| 6 |
>>> a clear policy. There are more examples of packages with broken |
| 7 |
>>> useflags such as app-editors/nano[debug] or other "vanilla" useflags |
| 8 |
>>> for glibc and so on which are all in STABLE branch. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>> This was already discussed in #gentoo-qa and it seems there is no |
| 11 |
>>> clear consensus about the issue. That's where the council has to |
| 12 |
>>> make a call. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> As I said, get a resolution from QA first, before escalating to the |
| 15 |
>> council. The procedure for this is clearly outlined in GLEP 48. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> QA policy has always been "if it doesn't compile either fix it or mask it" |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I don't even see why this needs discussion. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Do not expose users to breakage, OR ELSE (or else someone will fix it |
| 22 |
> for you) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Agree, but if this was discussed in #gentoo-qa and there was no clear |
| 25 |
consensus then I suspect that there is more to the issue than meets |
| 26 |
the eye. From what was written in the bug comments this seems like a |
| 27 |
no-brainer at first glance. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think that existing policy and common sense should cover this. |
| 30 |
However, if there is some nuance that needs consideration by all means |
| 31 |
bring it up. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
What are QA's feelings on the matter? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives