From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBEE1381FA for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 18:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA524E0982; Fri, 9 May 2014 18:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402AEE096B for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 18:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.187.243.203] (unknown [85.76.145.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA46033F36F for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 18:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <536D1C28.1010504@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 21:19:20 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 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] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 References: <536CE132.1070305@gentoo.org> <20140509172925.29e3f212@gentoo.org> <536D13CF.2000403@gentoo.org> <536D183A.1020405@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: dc0df328-5127-4906-9c1f-ee0b0932a766 X-Archives-Hash: 4a024815920d194c46e637a0745263c1 On 09/05/14 21:13, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, hasufell wrote: >> hasufell: >>> I'll give it to this list outright. >>> >>> I have problems believing in QA competence when I read comments like these: >>> >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c14 >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c17 >>> >> >> blocked or not, I just post them here, because there is nothing to hide: > I have no idea what the actual bug is from the excerpt, beyond it > somehow involving a tinderbox. > > Is this relevant to the question of whether we should be allowing > Gentoo-created pkg-config files, or is this another topic? If it is > another topic, what is the actual topic you want to discuss, and I > suggest you start another tread? > > (Sorry, I stole your message, not exactly a reply to it...) Of course they should be allowed, it's the only sane way to fix some of the build problems we are seeing today They are no different from patches, patches get added to Portage and the maintainer files an upstream bug (an effort to upstreamize it) Should we also ban patches from Portage then, up until they are committed to upstream? That's totally unrealistic. No sane upstream will reject them, and if they do, we will overturn their rejection by continuing shipping them downstream, just like we keep on patching required patches even if upstream rejects them. I'm really not happy about some decisions done by QA lately. Take the USE="gtk2 gtk3" crap for example, how is disallowing USE="gtk" (= means maintainer has carefully selected which toolkit works best for the package) improving anything? It's counterproductive, means now user needs to read sourcecode of each package to determine it for himself, no global USE="gtk" possible anymore, massive pollution of package.use. - Samuli