28.2.2006, 18:09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >> PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a | >> revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users | >> will still have the old broken package installed too. This is | >> especially relevant for security issues, but also applies to other | >> kinds of fix. > | > | Not including the revision into the SLOT can break the apps by > | removing the needed files from a live site... I still can't see any > | *QA* violation there.
> Again, that's a design flaw. It's an eclass that's abusing SLOT, thus > it's a QA issue. OK, so kernel-2.eclass is abusing the slot as well, go scream on kernel devs. > | Yeah, it checks for that since that's the way the eclass is designed. > | You can't declare a slot in a kernel ebuild either. > One is a design flaw. The other is not. Ah, tell me about the dual standards :P > | Well, starts to be boring - so, either come with something valid from > | QA standpoint or stop now. > This is a valid issue from a QA standpoint. This is also why I'm not > going to waste my time doing a proper list -- rather than addressing > issues, they are being passed off as irrelevant or even features. Next time, rather think a couple of times up before claiming something very broken on a public mailing list where you have no proof for such claims. Will be immensely helpful for everyone involved. Thanks. -- jakub
pgpxuk46qcDZF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
