From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D853138334 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 459C9E0A9E; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6A8BE0A94 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:26:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C523335C7D for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:26:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage QA check for FHS/Gentoo policy paths, for top-level dirs and /usr/share/doc To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1df93cd0-b3e7-56cf-3a29-bfaed2069e02@gentoo.org> <1538408896.1095.8.camel@gentoo.org> <2733265.gtnf6FpWjD@tuxbrain> <1538417788.1095.10.camel@gentoo.org> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <545032b4-c3bc-d5cc-6d9e-02db4bdcfc51@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:26:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 081d31e2-3f61-45c1-af07-115748fabb29 X-Archives-Hash: dea08d64aeecb7923dda93eeb391d577 On 10/03/2018 12:38 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > Until this QA check has adjustable whitelist support, we can consider it > an unstable work in progress. Has anyone said why these things need to be in ${PN}-${PV} rather than ${PF}? If they don't need to be in ${PN}-${PV} in the first place, then the QA check is just doing exactly what it's supposed to. If, on the other hand, there's a good reason for something to install docs outside of ${PF}, then we should just fix the check (and our policy) to allow it. (A whitelist is IMO the wrong approach, the QA check should never report "correct" things in the first place.)