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-user+bounces-100631-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1MplZ3-0006S2-UT
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:16:34 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5A23E08AB;
	Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.150])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5B7E08AB
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so1079342qwk.10
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.10.214 with SMTP id q22mr1165732qcq.91.1253549792395; Mon, 
	21 Sep 2009 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:16:32 -0700
Message-ID: <5061b39c0909210916u38206918j41e7917609cb2f76@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [gentoo-user] Gentoo Portage Feature Request
From: Paige Thompson <erratic@devel.ws>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ed56e15845f047418cedc
X-Archives-Salt: af2e802e-3ed2-42d2-ae36-0ea4a1a68146
X-Archives-Hash: 2a15ad5a359662549ae4b85ba1d1f89c

--0016364ed56e15845f047418cedc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I hope nobody finds this offensive, I'm not a great writer but I gotta get
this out there.

Goal: to resolve quality issues with packages and the behavior of portage

Problem 1:

This is a really simple thing, first of all it would help a lot if packages
will not try to build with specified cxxflags if the maintainer hasn't
tested the build and enabled them for that package.

case and point:
I have -fstack-protector-all in my cxxflags because I'm a paranoid idiot and
I'm overly confident that it could never be wrong to have that. emacs, fails
to build because of it but it's not obvious. I file a really pedantic bug
report, and later through trial and error and after having gotten over my
confidence in -fstack-protector-all realized that without it the package
*does* build. If the ebuild had a feature where it's metadata did not
indicate that it could build with that cxxflag, then portage could stop and
just tell me that up front *OR* prompt me and ask me what do next. I
understand that this would require package maintainers to actually *test*
their packages which is no trivial issue, and who wouldn't agree that if
they're not willing to then somebody else should? Not only that but it gives
you the ability to score maintainers based on the accuracy of the results.
I'm not even suggesting that this feature should be mandatory it could be
something that I could turn on or off-- I just want it so that I know what's
going on and I don't end up wasting people's time filing bug reports and
making them mad at me for being a noob.

Problem 2:
I know this is might be kind of nitpicky to you, and it's more or less the
same as problem 1 but I think if I specify -O0 in my cxxflags, that a
package that needs -O2 should not build and tell me that it needs it rather
than just building with -O2 anyway!! I mean seriously, why even give me the
option to specify the optimization level in the cxxflags. It's deceptive, I
don't like that I find it very difficult to take it seriously because of
that.

-Paige Thompson
erratic@devel.ws
saved on 9/21/09 8:41 AM by Paige Thompson

--0016364ed56e15845f047418cedc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<span class="postbody">I hope nobody finds this offensive, I&#39;m not a great writer but I gotta get this out there.<br><br>Goal: to resolve quality issues with packages and the behavior of portage
<br>

<br>
Problem 1:
<br>

<br>
This is a really simple thing, first of all it would help a lot if
packages will not try to build with specified cxxflags if the
maintainer hasn&#39;t tested the build and enabled them for that package.
<br>

<br>
case and point:
<br>I have -fstack-protector-all in my cxxflags because I&#39;m a paranoid
idiot and I&#39;m overly confident that it could never be wrong to have
that. emacs, fails to build because of it but it&#39;s not obvious. I file
a really pedantic bug report, and later through trial and error and
after having gotten over my confidence in -fstack-protector-all
realized that without it the package *does* build. If the ebuild had a
feature where it&#39;s metadata did not indicate that it could build with
that cxxflag, then portage could stop and just tell me that up front
*OR* prompt me and ask me what do next. I understand that this would
require package maintainers to actually *test* their packages which is
no trivial issue, and who wouldn&#39;t agree that if they&#39;re not willing to
then somebody else should? Not only that but it gives you the ability
to score maintainers based on the accuracy of the results. I&#39;m not even
suggesting that this feature should be mandatory it could be something
that I could turn on or off-- I just want it so that I know what&#39;s
going on and I don&#39;t end up wasting people&#39;s time filing bug reports
and making them mad at me for being a noob.
<br>

<br>
Problem 2:
<br>I know this is might be kind of nitpicky to you, and it&#39;s more or
less the same as problem 1 but I think if I specify -O0 in my cxxflags,
that a package that needs -O2 should not build and tell me that it
needs it rather than just building with -O2 anyway!! I mean seriously,
why even give me the option to specify the optimization level in the
cxxflags. It&#39;s deceptive, I don&#39;t like that I find it very difficult to
take it seriously because of that.
<br>

<br>
-Paige Thompson
<br>
<a href="mailto:erratic@devel.ws">erratic@devel.ws</a>
<br>
saved on 9/21/09 8:41 AM by Paige Thompson</span>

--0016364ed56e15845f047418cedc--