1 |
Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> said: |
2 |
> Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o> said: |
3 |
> > Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> said: |
4 |
> > > trying to install openssh on the dev profile one is greated with this |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > bugger: |
7 |
> > > * QA Notice: Package has poor programming practices which may |
8 |
> > > compile * fine but exhibit random runtime failures. |
9 |
> > > * closefromtest.c:46: warning: implicit declaration of function |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > ‘closefrom’ |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > * Please do not file a Gentoo bug and instead report the above QA |
14 |
> > > * issues directly to the upstream developers of this software. |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > This looks really really weird. On the one hand we are saying: "Its a |
17 |
> > > QA issue but upstream should fix it." followed by "It so broke, we |
18 |
> > > wont let you install it." |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Personally I think we should be directing our users to our Bugzilla |
21 |
> > always. We really don't want to be pissing off upstreams if we put in |
22 |
> > a patch that triggers one of these QA warnings and it ends up being |
23 |
> > our problem and not theirs. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> i would agree, that all issues should be reported in our own bugzilla |
26 |
> (also). |
27 |
> |
28 |
> It would be really nice if we somehow could annotate the bug, in the |
29 |
> ebuild, so that the warning already includes the bug number (or is |
30 |
> silenced by it) in an effort to reduce the number of duplicates. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> where are these qa checks implemented anyway? |
33 |
|
34 |
/usr/lib/portage/bin/misc-functions.sh |
35 |
|
36 |
We should probably get a discussion going with the dev community as a |
37 |
whole as to what we should change this text to, and why, so we don't |
38 |
bother upstreams with our own possible problems. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Mark Loeser |
43 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
44 |
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
45 |
web - http://www.halcy0n.com |