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 1FDTfK-00034p-LL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:42:55 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1QLgCTK030038; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:42:12 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1QLeJ3b005434 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:40:19 GMT Received: from [213.121.151.206] (helo=snowdrop.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1FDTco-000773-BJ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:40:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop.home) by snowdrop.home with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FDTcj-0007XW-W5 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:40:14 +0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:40:11 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision Message-ID: <20060226214011.13636962@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <1140989422.12229.72.camel@demandred.gnqs.org> References: <20060224141940.16864042@snowdrop.home> <1140983141.12387.30.camel@demandred.gnqs.org> <20060226200057.2698446a@snowdrop.home> <1140986797.12229.60.camel@demandred.gnqs.org> <20060226210453.7771ef50@snowdrop.home> <1140989422.12229.72.camel@demandred.gnqs.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.8.12; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_P8h=xSiNkAMQ9/KWbcnvQ_L"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: e4370f37-bf60-4676-88d0-00df47a9c4c7 X-Archives-Hash: d58b23fef9580e6926892456f4bce252 --Sig_P8h=xSiNkAMQ9/KWbcnvQ_L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:30:22 +0000 Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org> wrote: | On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 21:04 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Ok, so given that this is a closed source application, if upstream | > won't cooperate on something as simple as this, why do you expect | > them to cooperate with you on bugs or security issues? |=20 | That's not the issue here. The issue here is whether the QA team is | entitled to be requesting the removal of packages in this specific | instance. The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right. | There are never any guarantees that any UPSTREAM will co-operate with | us on bugs or security issues. If we can't live with the issues, and | we can't fix them, the packages get dropped. I've no problem with | that. Sure. And if upstream won't even cooperate to the extent of renaming a file, how do you expect them to react when we require something less trvial? | > | Everything else is up for discussion. I think it's unreasonable | > | to say that I'm refusing to work with you. | >=20 | > You're repeatedly closing off the bug rather than suggesting | > alternative ways of fixing the issue.=20 |=20 | I think, in this specific case, there are better things to spend the | time on. I don't have a queue of users telling me that the way we | handle this today is a problem. There's no evidence that, in this | specific case, there is a problem out in the real world. It's so bad a problem that you even had to document it in the user guide and tell people to use some nasty hacked workaround. | Hang on a moment. It's not clear to me why I must go to the Portage | team for a change, when it's the QA team demanding change? As the QA | team wants the change, why don't you go to the Portage team and ask | them to implement DEST_PREFIX? We don't have a legitimate demonstration package, and we're not going to go and ask the Portage team to make code changes to support hypothetical speculation. You're the only one with a test case here. | > | The issue at hand is that the QA team is, in this case, repeatedly | > | asking for something it doesn't have the authority to insist on. | > | I also think you're being unreasonable in this specific case. | >=20 | > We're asking you to work with us in fixing a tree breakage. That's | > our goal here. We can't do this if you just go around closing off | > bugs and refusing to cooperate. |=20 | Please stop spreading FUD, and libelling my name here. =20 You've closed that bug five times now without fixing it. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Sig_P8h=xSiNkAMQ9/KWbcnvQ_L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEAiA996zL6DUtXhERAkEGAKDdQnh7d8esZ+ra9+EdaCwKqbqznwCfamdl 0AGCYfKWFHIoJH5Q0zJq/DI= =N9mk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_P8h=xSiNkAMQ9/KWbcnvQ_L-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list