From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 17:48:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1538408896.1095.8.camel@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1df93cd0-b3e7-56cf-3a29-bfaed2069e02@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1788 bytes --]
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 08:19 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ~arch version of portage hs a new QA check that reports installation
> of files outside of directories that have been whitelisted [1]. The
> current whitelist includes:
>
> directories common to / and /usr
> ================================
> bin lib lib32 lib64 libx32 sbin
>
> top level directories
> ================================
> boot dev etc opt srv usr var
>
> /usr level directories
> ================================
> include libexec share src
>
> /usr/share/doc level directories
> ================================
> /usr/share/doc/${PF}
>
> The first bug report [2] is for qt-core, which installs documentation
> into /usr/share/doc/${PN}-${PV} instead of /usr/share/doc/${PF} (${PF}
> includes ebuild revision such as -r1, -r2, and so on).
No, it doesn't. There's no /usr/share/doc/qtcore-5.11.1 on my system.
> I have created a patch that will allow ebuilds to whitelist directories
> by setting a QA_INSTALL_PATHS variable [3], however @mgorny said:
@mgorny was seriously concerned about trigger-happy patch authors who
find it urgent to silence QA warnings without even bothering to properly
discuss the problem. And is continuously concerned about people who
want something but don't bother starting the discussion, and instead
rely on somebody else to start the discussion, even without having
the appropriate knowledge on what the problem is in the first place.
In other words, this is something that should be discussed on a case-by-
case basis. Not the usual Gentoo thing of 'I don't like this QA
warning, let's silence it quickly and go on ignoring everyone, whether
my package is broken or not'.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-01 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-01 15:19 [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc Zac Medico
2018-10-01 15:34 ` Mike Gilbert
2018-10-01 15:38 ` [gentoo-dev] " Michael Orlitzky
2018-10-01 15:48 ` Michał Górny [this message]
2018-10-01 16:26 ` [gentoo-dev] " Zac Medico
2018-10-01 17:23 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2018-10-01 18:16 ` Michał Górny
2018-10-01 18:23 ` Zac Medico
2018-10-03 16:38 ` Zac Medico
2018-10-03 18:26 ` Michael Orlitzky
2018-10-03 18:29 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2018-10-03 20:10 ` Michał Górny
2019-01-27 13:58 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2018-10-01 20:04 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2018-10-01 20:48 ` Zac Medico
2018-10-01 21:45 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2018-10-02 7:46 ` Andrew Savchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1538408896.1095.8.camel@gentoo.org \
--to=mgorny@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox