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 BA0CE138334 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A96D2E0C57; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 3BF9AE0C4D for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:53:50 +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 F2B5334C879 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:53:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do (old-ish) Portage QA checks comprise policy? To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <33564bf19f26e1f99d9efca5d1c15c079c01e3d9.camel@gentoo.org> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.0 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <33564bf19f26e1f99d9efca5d1c15c079c01e3d9.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 4c86c411-7163-48d3-8df9-2f2dd3503b31 X-Archives-Hash: 39c09f501429eb8ae750c8e1ab789593 On 11/4/19 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time, > does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage > team? > To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the time it would take to vote on each of these policies formally, document them on the wiki, and then move the related checks to ::gentoo/metadata where other package managers can benefit from them (and where they can't be unilaterally nuked). Having a comprehensive list of policies will also help developers who want to Do The Right Thing and who read up on these things proactively. In this case, whether or not this is "policy" is beside the point. No one else wants to remove this check because it's useful and prevents developers from accidentally dumping garbage onto users' (often limited) root filesystems. Some people don't like to do their jobs, though, and for those developers it's a lot easier to delete the check and make things worse for everybody than it would be to package software correctly. Just Say No. That's what QA is for. But again, it would be easier to veto these obviously-stupid things if they've been documented.