Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 19:58:10
Message-Id: CAGfcS_n7TXL0s+uY5vYTiWdq4w8w6qeSZ5qPm2TCm=imFoRS+g@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC by Kristian Fiskerstrand
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 09:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Here is again an item that was retracted from last month's agenda, >> in modified form. This time, it only affects the syntax of dependency >> groups but not their truth value: > > I might be misremembering, but wasn't the discussion going along the > lines of this actually belonging in devmanual, and as such is more QA > territory, if it doesn't affect the value the package manager evaluates to? >
Does the PMS actually define what the correct behavior is for this syntax? IMO a spec ought to do that, unless we really want to define it as "undefined." (While rare that actually does come up for various reasons.) Now, if it is defined and we just need to communicate that we want our devs to avoid it anyway, then that is QA territory. There are an infinite number of ways to write a program that meets a spec, but that doesn't mean that we want all of them showing up. We could also make it a QA issue for now and then fix the spec in the next PMS revision, and leave the behavior undefined going back. -- Rich

Replies