From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-3557-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD3E1381FA
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:46:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B04C3E09FD;
	Sat, 10 May 2014 12:46:40 +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 0AFF4E09FD
	for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:46:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (unknown [173.254.216.66])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: hasufell)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20C0A33FD6A
	for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:46:37 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 12:46:31 +0000
From: hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
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: <CAGfcS_n-u9T7xec7YGumsnkMXRRnHWQ2i+3SEha+69veSP--WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGfcS_nc5DRqy5urW9WjqgD2EKvmc5Ls7Pee2h4Z73xpnx0Q9Q@mail.gmail.com>	<536CE132.1070305@gentoo.org>	<20140509172925.29e3f212@gentoo.org>	<536D13CF.2000403@gentoo.org>	<536D183A.1020405@gentoo.org>	<CAGfcS_nDhAtE8Xw24NPwJeZyZ7rH3iB0VETHVBP+bvU-6T2iyg@mail.gmail.com>	<536D1C28.1010504@gentoo.org> <20140509203727.1d6a3e69@gentoo.org> <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 17642a26-134a-4c42-95d5-8a0b51c19d4c
X-Archives-Hash: 20976c3d3cc4d8569e0438039ee0f428

Samuli Suominen:
> 
> On 09/05/14 21:37, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> 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.
>> So, rehashing it in a thread to which it is unrelated yields no results.
>>
> 
> I'm not so sure, it seems QA is picking policies as per what some loud
> people on the ML say as opposed to giving overwhelming technical arguments
> their proper weight
> 

Well, if QA team members confuses "bugs" with "bug reports" and say they
don't want to do actual work (aka tinderbox), because it would cause
more "bugs", then I have serious doubts about their technical
understanding of certain issues.

Sure, there is always more than one opinion and I'm not posting here
because someone decided against my own opinion, but because there is no
clear decision whatsoever.

This isn't the first time... you probably know, the gtk3 vs gtk2 vs gtk
flag issue is still UNRESOLVED. I pushed for a clear decision often
enough (must be more than a year now) and here we are, still without any.
The same applies for tinderbox, applies for pkg-config discussion,
applies for...