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 5CADF1381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:21:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23D38E0B1C; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f174.google.com (mail-ve0-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87DB4E0B03 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d10so192253vea.33 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=fiQpa+/fYzOpGqM5V12r48TsWAcZ2hvTTOtqK1UqrwI=; b=CqWChG/9n9WLTxmxHhcPepf8/0jUaAFc2NGvJMVzpvMOodUUEEzLRtLO/ijx6f69Bo V6o0huIGF9gGHiMAioVwODo2w2LPHq1bf57SObEFSvrxTZoobwaLJHQ7ZJCMIdSvmJuU nDkmdckoEYN0VTM1dTFdFxEGAwjL1BlljCE6YE+EJWjzsY9AD2+9xM1zTRdEAi6fchY9 3EYoCgCsAjmmiTDjabOYyQ3GpjuUhqt/T/Ew1HqAi3BC3XfGIDJhApGA0Gpo+9vdiV7G Qx6T41PNNe7/F9BcH5SIu3h4ASZbZfOEx1CKgcQzyFOiSkSdQLQ5S50iakO2GHtFJ3s3 C45g== 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 X-Received: by 10.220.174.200 with SMTP id u8mr2501747vcz.6.1377775293748; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.187.68 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <521EAD5A.7060701@gentoo.org> 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> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 07:21:33 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LtfJoETovX0gMd6OvMSZZym0l0Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 62a494c4-96f9-4397-8fbf-231e7c397f67 X-Archives-Hash: 09385060aff3d04f089a40c6e55b4420 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