| 1 |
On 08/28/2013 03:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I want the council to make clear whether useflags that are: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> * unsupported by the maintainer |
| 7 |
>> * are known to break the build or application at runtime |
| 8 |
>> * introduce security vulnerabilities |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> are allowed to remain unmasked in stable packages. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> - -- |
| 14 |
>> reference bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482112 |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> As far as I can see, this concerns a single package only. So please |
| 17 |
> try to resolve through project lead and QA team, as outlined in |
| 18 |
> GLEP 48. If you disagree with the QA team's resolution, _then_ you may |
| 19 |
> appeal to the council. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Not adding to next meeting's agenda. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Ulrich |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
No, it does not concern a single package only. This is about making a |
| 27 |
clear policy. There are more examples of packages with broken useflags |
| 28 |
such as app-editors/nano[debug] or other "vanilla" useflags for glibc |
| 29 |
and so on which are all in STABLE branch. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
This was already discussed in #gentoo-qa and it seems there is no clear |
| 32 |
consensus about the issue. That's where the council has to make a call. |
Archives