From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-qa+bounces-110-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1OoO4p-0001K9-3G
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:04:11 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C2C12E0B79
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:04:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B000E08A8
	for <gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:03:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from marsupilami.localnet (84-238-115-127.u.parknet.dk [84.238.115.127])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 359381B406B
	for <gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:03:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: Thilo Bangert <bangert@gentoo.org>
Organization: Gentoo
To: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] QA confusion: Upstream qa issues -> failing to install
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:02:10 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35.1; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <201008251342.14948.bangert@gentoo.org> <20100825182755.GA6815@halcy0n.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100825182755.GA6815@halcy0n.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-qa+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-qa+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-qa+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-qa.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart2816648.o84RjKYLqy";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201008260002.14965.bangert@gentoo.org>
X-Archives-Salt: dcdb03fe-a59c-432e-b595-be35ead5d737
X-Archives-Hash: f107adb0c914acd0e562b856c502874f

--nextPart2816648.o84RjKYLqy
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> said:
> Thilo Bangert <bangert@gentoo.org> said:
> > trying to install openssh on the dev profile one is greated with this
> >=20
> > bugger:
> >  * QA Notice: Package has poor programming practices which may
> >  compile *            fine but exhibit random runtime failures.
> >  * closefromtest.c:46: warning: implicit declaration of function
> >=20
> > =E2=80=98closefrom=E2=80=99
> >=20
> >  * Please do not file a Gentoo bug and instead report the above QA
> >  * issues directly to the upstream developers of this software.
> >=20
> > This looks really really weird. On the one hand we are saying: "Its a
> > QA issue but upstream should fix it." followed by "It so broke, we
> > wont let you install it."
>=20
> Personally I think we should be directing our users to our Bugzilla
> always.  We really don't want to be pissing off upstreams if we put in
> a patch that triggers one of these QA warnings and it ends up being
> our problem and not theirs.

 i would agree, that all issues should be reported in our own bugzilla=20
(also).

It would be really nice if we somehow could annotate the bug, in the=20
ebuild, so that the warning already includes the bug number (or is=20
silenced by it) in an effort to reduce the number of duplicates.

where are these qa checks implemented anyway?

thanks
Thilo

--nextPart2816648.o84RjKYLqy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkx1kuYACgkQxRElEoA5AndCpQCg0yADh7TVa/cSri01CtKt4Dg0
ZlEAn0dpzyA84xJ8q4NpleXUY16zo9OX
=1Lsm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2816648.o84RjKYLqy--