Petteri Räty wrote:
#SRC_URI="mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz" # starting to hate sf.net ... SRC_URI="http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz";The filename that violates our policies hasn't changed between the new and old SRC_URI.
Is this policy actually written down someplace? Sure, having the SRC_URI pick up the package version automatically is good practice and all, but does this actually rise to the level of a QA policy violation? To me the word "policy violation" means more than just something that could have been done better. It means that someplace there is an official rule in writing that wasn't followed, and that rule was endorsed by some official body recognized by gentoo. I don't think quizzes can be considered policy since by design their answers aren't written anywhere.
The only downside to not being clever with the SRC_URI is that to bump the package you'd need to edit the URL. That isn't exactly the end of the world, and while this is a trivial one to fix I've certainly seen a few that are quite messy to automate.
Now, if there were no version in the filename I'd consider that a policy issue as it would mean that the distfiles would get confused rather quickly. However, not every lack of ideality is a policy violation worthy of a 30-post -dev thread.
Even so, it doesn't hurt to point out non-idealities so that they can be corrected. Let's just try not to treat them the same as if somebody had keyworded something that breaks stable systems...
