From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SHvzO-0002ki-7o for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:45:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B77BE0CA9; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:45:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556C1E0C89 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so669129bkw.40 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:44:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VvuzYCtl7WrD5MwNxgtr51v02J43JCQse4H1TZTbToo=; b=R8Ie/2uCpr0cB+Hx41NTonx70icXdHOW2ONrHxh+OafgcdtJwrPrrd1f0prPRJVbG6 qSYdce3QXvL15F78km7vx9t0cGCblgGCdR3e1OmvxqX26m+3sdcSUK4iwbIOWU+4vpau 5ExfdzoYQLytvl72oDWhAoH8MGTLM+lAfiIE7uOW+x1GV66qw9OrKCDI+Gqpt+J3z54P bRP8/2Sxye138JpCNYuTVgIjQVjCpqYWEdxwUYvl8cffSkrlOWRpkKjKkK1nELCtgR/c mxUV06DfpSY+YpvMia0YLZQMp1flGHfnIbq6+Q/C1VoLXUynRKYTQk7NDS0yQizDTAuj NKrw== 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 Received: by 10.204.9.205 with SMTP id m13mr5985460bkm.68.1334144659166; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.226.77 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:44:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com> <4F833687.4040004@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:44:19 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: YsSduC6JElXIA_6FcfU2XPg83v0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 62d2cce2-ea63-4d85-b3e5-0e04322496d6 X-Archives-Hash: 2aa9e1d9a5333bfc15e30ebea039ed29 On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote: > As for the burden of ensuring that binaries installed to /{s,}bin don't link > to libs in /usr, why not just automate a QA check for that, and let > developers decide whether a fix is necessary? After all, core packages that > do that even when configured with prefix and execprefix = /, aren't so > portable, and Gentoo has always championed "doing the right thing" wrt > helping upstream fix portability issues. The only issue with that logic is that upstream is perfectly aware of what they're doing already, and bugs are likely to be closed as WONTFIX. So, all the QA checks would do is ensure that we slowly start maintaining forks of more and more packages. Right now the problem is probably manageable, but I'm not convinced it will stay that way. Once upstream developers consider all constraints to be removed on their dependencies you could see a lot of stuff getting pulled into root if you tried to enforce this rule. In any case, it sounds like the directive is to keep limping along for a while longer, and that makes sense anyway until docs/etc are improved. I agree with Ralph's suggestion that the newer initramfs tools should be stabilized as well. Rich