-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jakub,
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
|>>When and where has been the following change discussed and who
|>>approved that?
|>>
|>>http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?r1=1.25&r2=1.26&root=gentoo
|>According to my recollection, it was discussed between members of QA
|>and devrel. According to the CVS logs, it was committed by a member of
|>devrel, at QA's request. You can't pass it off as a QA project
|>conspiracy, since they didn't make the change.
| I'm sorry, but discussing such stuff affecting pretty much everyone who
| writes ebuilds among a couple of people simply isn't enough to make this a
| policy. And then silently applying this and starting to scream "QA
| violation, look, what a nasty QA violation!!!" is plain ridiculous.
Well, it was common sense before. Especially because it was part of the
devmanual. I know, the next argument will be: The devmanual is not
official. However, this particular text had been part of the devmanual
for a long time. Many devs read it and afaict nobody objected against it
while it was 'unofficial'. In my opinion, there was enough time to raise
a hand and yell: 'I don't like it'.
Beside this, I'd like to support the non-interactive mode on the base of
efficiency: It is better to install a package with a default and sane
set of USE flags instead of breaking the whole update process.
However, this incident should be logged by portage.
| Punting every single piece of broken sh*t from the tree requires notifying
| everyone on -dev ml and allowing a period of time before it's actually
done,
| so silently changing/stating policies is a very broken practice.
Nobody changed anything. It was written down before in the devmanual and
then incorporated into the developer handbook.
If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your
opposition earlier?
If you agree with the contents, please ask yourself if the current
discussion is necessary.
I'm looking forward to your answers on the last 2 points.
Danny
- --
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEBHk1aVNL8NrtU6IRAlRbAKCH233GWmOQWlRy/DQQh/aRR++4ZACfd230
rYQgmnvH9Y/0YSijnCSAOIc=
=QQEa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jakub,
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
|>>When and where has been the following change discussed and who
|>>approved that?
|>>
|>>http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?r1=1.25&r2=1.26&root=gentoo
|>According to my recollection, it was discussed between members of QA
|>and devrel. According to the CVS logs, it was committed by a member of
|>devrel, at QA's request. You can't pass it off as a QA project
|>conspiracy, since they didn't make the change.
| I'm sorry, but discussing such stuff affecting pretty much everyone who
| writes ebuilds among a couple of people simply isn't enough to make this a
| policy. And then silently applying this and starting to scream "QA
| violation, look, what a nasty QA violation!!!" is plain ridiculous.
Well, it was common sense before. Especially because it was part of the
devmanual. I know, the next argument will be: The devmanual is not
official. However, this particular text had been part of the devmanual
for a long time. Many devs read it and afaict nobody objected against it
while it was 'unofficial'. In my opinion, there was enough time to raise
a hand and yell: 'I don't like it'.
Beside this, I'd like to support the non-interactive mode on the base of
efficiency: It is better to install a package with a default and sane
set of USE flags instead of breaking the whole update process.
However, this incident should be logged by portage.
| Punting every single piece of broken sh*t from the tree requires notifying
| everyone on -dev ml and allowing a period of time before it's actually
done,
| so silently changing/stating policies is a very broken practice.
Nobody changed anything. It was written down before in the devmanual and
then incorporated into the developer handbook.
If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your
opposition earlier?
If you agree with the contents, please ask yourself if the current
discussion is necessary.
I'm looking forward to your answers on the last 2 points.
Danny
- --
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEBHk1aVNL8NrtU6IRAlRbAKCH233GWmOQWlRy/DQQh/aRR++4ZACfd230
rYQgmnvH9Y/0YSijnCSAOIc=
=QQEa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list