16.02.2015 14:43, Patrick Lauer пишет: > On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) >>>> >>>> <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11 >>>>> >>>>> Removed: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild >>>>> >>>>> metadata.xml >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> QA: Remove package with invalid copyright >>>> >>>> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people. if >>>> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug. putting a "QA" >>>> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass. >>> >>> Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't >>> let you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me >>> to believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it? >> >> feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman >> full` yourself. no fatal errors. in fact you can see the generated >> tags in my commit message. > > Well, AutoRepoman triggered on it. > > Testing for fun on a random ebuild: > > RepoMan scours the neighborhood... > ebuild.badheader 1 > dev-db/hyperdex/hyperdex-1.6.0-r1.ebuild: Invalid Gentoo Copyright on > line: > 1 > > > Which again leads me to the question: > > Why are these checks not properly fatal? > > (And I really do not like having to repeat myself ...) > >> >> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is >> complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in >> Gentoo is completely unenforceable. we have no CLA. this was >> patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box. >> -mike > > As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager. > > Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong) I opted for > the > easy way out - remove offending bits. > > > Have fun, > > Patrick >
Your logic is almost flawless. Almost, because you forgot the valuable part of our policy - notifying maintainer. If your package will be dropped because you violate QA rules - well, things can happen. But if it will be done silently, i am pretty sure that you will be angry. I would be, definitely. I am not asking for justification of every action, that QA doing by maintainer - that would be totally wrong. Just follow our policy: "Serious issue -> fix and after that notify maintainer". -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
