Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 09:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Here is again an item that was retracted from last month's agenda,
>> in modified form. This time, it only affects the syntax of dependency
>> groups but not their truth value:
>
> I might be misremembering, but wasn't the discussion going along the
> lines of this actually belonging in devmanual, and as such is more QA
> territory, if it doesn't affect the value the package manager evaluates to?
>

Does the PMS actually define what the correct behavior is for this
syntax?  IMO a spec ought to do that, unless we really want to define
it as "undefined."  (While rare that actually does come up for various
reasons.)

Now, if it is defined and we just need to communicate that we want our
devs to avoid it anyway, then that is QA territory.  There are an
infinite number of ways to write a program that meets a spec, but that
doesn't mean that we want all of them showing up.

We could also make it a QA issue for now and then fix the spec in the
next PMS revision, and leave the behavior undefined going back.

-- 
Rich