From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FEQRh-0002EY-TU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:28:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k21CRxDP032229; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:27:59 GMT Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz (gw.top-hosting.cz [81.0.254.91]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k21COpLd010932 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:24:51 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7537EA55124 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:24:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.top-hosting.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11216-10-2 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:24:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from NOTORCOMP (21.217.broadband4.iol.cz [85.71.217.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1200508944 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:24:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:24:41 +0100 From: Jakub Moc X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1207770529.20060301132441@gentoo.org> To: Paul de Vrieze Subject: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role In-Reply-To: <200603011310.03244.pauldv@gentoo.org> References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <661276105.20060228200902@gentoo.org> <20060228202020.54f297ba@snowdrop.home> <200603011310.03244.pauldv@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="----------C34113C3FF13A96" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at top-hosting.cz X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.088 tagged_above=-999 required=6 tests=[AWL=-0.348, BAYES_20=-0.74] X-Spam-Score: -1.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: ba92cfb5-a00c-42f6-8ad0-4d4cee978438 X-Archives-Hash: 70fdb4a23b3a8a9c99fd2bd3abb3f69f ------------C34113C3FF13A96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D=0A1.3.2006, 13:09:55, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 21:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> | > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" =3D "1" ] ; then >> | > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}" >> | > >> | > emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}" >> | > fi > This code (or an equivalent kludge/hack) does however allow features that= are > of great value to our users. While I agree that such hacks should be avoi= ded > if possible, I think in this case it is not. As such the appropriate resp= onse > is to isolate the hack in a central place, where it is clear to be seen a= nd=20 > can easilly be fixed. This allows the quality of the hack to be ensured,= =20 > relieving many webapps from doing hacks themselves. > While this hack is being used, some effort should be put into > constructively creating a proper solution for the problems that were > hacked around. Saying "this is not allowed because of X policy" is not > helpful as the costs of disallowing it greatly outweigh the costs of > overlooking it in a controlled manner. Well yeah, but the problem here is that portage doesn't allow such stuff to be used safely (locking issues, race conditions). And yeah, it's kinda lacking sort of feature that would have its use in a couple of places. -- jakub ------------C34113C3FF13A96 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEBZKJhxfV/c66PZ4RAtKhAJsGUTGOMjBuKxjygph0EHodaOcixgCfQc7e tvTRY5CtZwh7zwlpyYErKrY= =4BMg -----END PGP MESSAGE----- ------------C34113C3FF13A96-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list