Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

[Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1522 bytes --]


28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:


> Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:

>     if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
>         einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"

>         emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
>     fi

No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you point out
to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours ago, saving us from
all the eclass formating, slotting and ewarn blurb. The above needs to be
fixed, period.

To return to the original topic - focus your QA efforts on real issues. Same
goes for that non-interactivity stuff. QA that serves no other purpose than
inventing problems to enforce an inevitably hackish solution (there's no
good one because the needed tools are not available) is not useful at all.
There's nothing useful in inventing policies that create more problems than
they solve and that are forcing shitty bash code into the tree to work
around missing features.

Portage is a tool to install and manage packages, and serves no good purpose
on its own. Crippling installed packages and their available features for
the sole purpose of having nice ebuild tree with clean bash code is not what
QA is for. Improving the whole process is fine and welcome, as long as it
doesn't unnecessarily interfere with the desired outcome. Users need to
install some software they want to use and need its features, portage and
ebuids are only the means to do that, not a holy cow.


-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]