Re: [gentoo-dev] 'stricter' FEATURE and "poor programming practices" notice

["Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:12:01 +0200
Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I've had the 'stricter' FEATURE turned on for some time and found that
> many packages failed due to the QA notice regarding poor programming
> practices. I filed a few bugs for this but have not gotten a lot of
> response, or the suggestion to talk to upstream. Obviously the latter
> is always a good option, but I'm wondering what the intend behind
> this QA notice is.
> 
> My view is that if this is a QA notice then, if a package doesn't
> emerge because of it, it is a Gentoo QA bug and package maintainers
> should be responsible for fixing it. 
> 
> If the notice is only informational, then the emerge process should
> not be stopped because of it (and this would mean that it is nice to
> fix these issues but not mandatory).

Yeah; it's a bit of a pain, especially if you have '-Wall' in CFLAGS
(a large proportion of packages fail if you do).

I've ended up removing stricter from FEATURES, which is far from ideal
as it means all the other checks are no longer fatal, some of which I
really want to know about at emerge time (well, to be honest, I've
ended up patching portage locally to make the "bad code" thing
non-fatal).

In a broader scope, we could do with a "QA check control" file or
something to provide finer-grained control of these QA checks.  However
the QA checks themselves seem to be a bit ad-hoc at the moment.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]