3.3.2006, 6:31:17, Mark Loeser wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> one thing i dont think we give enough emphasis to is that our tools arent >> perfect ... sometimes we utilize QA violations to work around portage >> limitations ... if you want to see some really sweet hacks, review any of >> the >> toolchain related ebuilds and the hacks ive had to add to get >> cross-compiling >> to the usuable state that it is today. a handful of them would fall under >> the 'severe' category i'm sure. and if we want to use the lovely php >> example, personally i think that given portage's current limitations, the >> latest dev-lang/php ebuild is probably one of the best solutions that could >> have been developed, thanks Stuart for all the flak you've had to take over >> this. also, many games ebuilds break the 'non-interactive' policy by >> displaying licensing and making the user hit "Y" because portage lacks >> checks >> where the user explicitly states what licenses they accept.
> This somewhat touchs on what pauldv mentioned earlier, that we will > acknowledge when no better possible solution is available, and some > "workaround" is needed. As he also suggested, we should keep a list of > these in the form of open bugs so that we can get a better solution > somewhere in the long-term. Please, until something is clarified/some consent reached, avoid changing the docs w/ funny stuff like "just flip a coin"... http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?root=gentoo&r1=1.31&r2=1.32 What's the above again? QA policy? How does user benefit from flipping a coin wrt choosing a functionality? Sigh... :/ -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
pgp9VCpGMLVmo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
