Eli Schwartz <eschwart...@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/1/24 10:10 AM, Martin Dummer wrote: >> Since Agostino's tinderbox tests now report qa warning, the group >> v...@gentoo.org has 101 open bugs assigned, most of them caused by qa >> warnings from vdr-plugin-2.eclass. >> >> Many vdr plugins need small adjustments because API or makefile changes >> in upstream media-video/vdr which can be easily fixed with small changes. >> >> These warnings are only useful for the vdr plugin maintainers, so I >> propose they should (only) be reported as QA-warnings when the global >> variable >> VDR_MAINTAINER_MODE="1" >> is set in make.conf >> >> This patch is also put to github in >> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/36504 >> >> The PR is lacking many many "Closes: ...." tags, which I will fill in soon. >> >> Any comments? > > > What does "only useful for the vdr plugin maintainers" mean? Why can't > anyone fix them? > > There are lots of QA warnings that a package can generate, and lots of > them are "only" relevant to someone editing the upstream source code. > Why should vdr plugins be special? > > From a quick glance at the warning messages, my inexpert feeling is that > two of them are a bit "wishy-washy" and could be classified as "a > warning to be picky and do best practices": > > - gettext handling > - old Makefile handling > > The others seem like worrisome issues that should very much be reported > in tinderboxes and get fixed.
What we really need is: a) https://bugs.gentoo.org/162450 to avoid scaring users; b) possibly some level of QA notice to distinguish between "check this out" (think e.g. qa-vdb LHS where it _might_ be unused, but not necessarily), and "this is definitely wrong" I am convinced we need a), I am not-at-all convinced we need b) - at least not in terms of whether bugs are reported. > > Automatically sed'ing out source code, especially for the one that says > "please recheck", very much looks like the purpose of the qa warning is > that the functionality isn't trusted to be correct, is offered on a > best-effort basis, and needs to be manually reviewed and marked as okay > (by applying as a real patch) in order to squelch the warnings. > > In other words, there are "QA issues" and "QA nitpicks".
