Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > I'd argue against this one. See, it's possible to deliberately > > circumvent some of repoman's checks by doing weird whitespace and syntax > > trickery. There's also no way to fix repoman short of writing a fully > > functional bash parsing tool -- which is complicated enough that even > > bash doesn't have one that works in some releases... > > QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use. The final say should > be the human interaction. If doing weird white spaces breaks the tool, > but really isn't a QA issue outside of neatness, it shouldn't be waving > red flags. Yes, its probably something that should be fixed, but it > shouldn't be a critical one just because the tool is broken and can't > handle the weirdness.
I agree. Coding standards, while they may qualify as violations, are
not as severe, but are definitely things we would like to see fixed.
They are there to make readability across ebuilds easier since
everything will be formatted the same way for a developer to see.
--
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
http://www.halcy0n.com
pgplmu4fjgdQn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
