From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399BD1381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:37:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B7A8E0DC1; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6EA2E0D8A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-5d822357.pool.mediaWays.net [93.130.35.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AF6033ECEB for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <521F4E95.1000909@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:37:25 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130813 Thunderbird/17.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <521DF137.5030600@gentoo.org> <21021.63629.125999.529909@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <521E0350.6090603@gentoo.org> <21022.11551.653488.206691@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <521EAD5A.7060701@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 938ba8bb-91c7-4fd1-a0f6-ab7b808480be X-Archives-Hash: a67743e4880317b468bdcc1aa926f619 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/29/2013 01:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Patrick Lauer > wrote: >> On 08/29/2013 01:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, hasufell wrote: >>> >>>> No, it does not concern a single package only. This is about >>>> making a clear policy. There are more examples of packages >>>> with broken useflags such as app-editors/nano[debug] or other >>>> "vanilla" useflags for glibc and so on which are all in >>>> STABLE branch. >>> >>>> This was already discussed in #gentoo-qa and it seems there >>>> is no clear consensus about the issue. That's where the >>>> council has to make a call. >>> >>> As I said, get a resolution from QA first, before escalating to >>> the council. The procedure for this is clearly outlined in GLEP >>> 48. >>> >> QA policy has always been "if it doesn't compile either fix it or >> mask it" >> >> I don't even see why this needs discussion. >> >> Do not expose users to breakage, OR ELSE (or else someone will >> fix it for you) > > Agree, but if this was discussed in #gentoo-qa and there was no > clear consensus then I suspect that there is more to the issue than > meets the eye. From what was written in the bug comments this > seems like a no-brainer at first glance. > > I think that existing policy and common sense should cover this. > However, if there is some nuance that needs consideration by all > means bring it up. > > What are QA's feelings on the matter? > > Rich > The QA lead didn't respond yet, but I tried to raise his attention. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSH06VAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzu6kH/ioge0WrLmOZoSzRJgusErRQ cbgcKeGCe2BTIJsoC2KfDO6oBHaCdYVkwJBiVFIFaCBk0DchqOjBL0UgmEnwxSYp /8GF29aNuYTETz553vJ6BP7NDLedm9m8t/unTPAPv9JeyD0gg8Gdi4hFfg0y3TOz 4HlTd9rQ3KUYjg8U9RNOUN1pLIFtSsV603Vn3GErtsMeeR6vcvDydQg4GfxeSF6T gYQpfkasEAOAb+DjBeB9eryptr4tFjx6Hb+GjPIdC5H6gn8HhhIPYjNYpIrx8QMA CQSWWeefYW4jJkNs/etnjDaNSyI/KLRhIfa0KJ+gy8YgGB795y6kbhijiuw1ypE= =noh0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----