[PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

William Hubbs
Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.

Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
---
 bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
--- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
+++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
@@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
  done
  [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
 
- # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
- f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
- if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
- __vecho -ne '\n'
- eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
- eqawarn "${f}"
- __vecho -ne '\n'
- die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
- fi
-
  # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
  local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
  for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
--
2.23.0


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Michał Górny-5
On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
>

The hacks aren't 'unnecessary'.  There is a very good reason that files
that are used *purely at build time* don't land in /.  That reason is
disk space.  Even if people nowadays are forced to use initramfs with
separate /usr, it doesn't mean you should just let their rootfs fill up
with useless files.

Do you have any *real* argument?  Because 'unnecessary hack' is
basically your feeling of ebuild aesthetics.  My aesthetics is more
worried about useless clutter in /lib*.  FHS agrees with me, as you
yourself admitted yesterday.

So why do you believe we should introduce this regression?  And why are
you trying to sneak it past most of the developers via gentoo-portage-
dev instead of gentoo-dev?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

William Hubbs
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
> >
>
> The hacks aren't 'unnecessary'.  There is a very good reason that files
> that are used *purely at build time* don't land in /.  That reason is
> disk space.  Even if people nowadays are forced to use initramfs with
> separate /usr, it doesn't mean you should just let their rootfs fill up
> with useless files.
The useless files argument really holds no water with me. We install
many files on / that are useless in one situation or another.
Some examples are logrotate files when logrotate isn't installed,
systemd units for openrc systems and openrc init scripts for systemd
systems.

Talk to me about useless files on / after we put all of these, and
possibly others I can't think of,  behind use flags.

> Do you have any *real* argument?  Because 'unnecessary hack' is
> basically your feeling of ebuild aesthetics.  My aesthetics is more
> worried about useless clutter in /lib*.  FHS agrees with me, as you
> yourself admitted yesterday.

Any downstream hack means that we are being lazy and not reporting the
bug upstream and asking them to fix it.

This particular issue is not a big deal to any other distro and has
never been. Shouldn't we try to get upstreams to do this if it is so
important?

> So why do you believe we should introduce this regression?  And why are
> you trying to sneak it past most of the developers via gentoo-portage-
> dev instead of gentoo-dev?

This attack is un called for. This list is as open as any other,
and there is no need for you to make this out to be some kind of
conspiracy theory to "sneak" something past the developers.

William


signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Michał Górny-5
On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 13:49 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> > > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
> > >
> >
> > The hacks aren't 'unnecessary'.  There is a very good reason that files
> > that are used *purely at build time* don't land in /.  That reason is
> > disk space.  Even if people nowadays are forced to use initramfs with
> > separate /usr, it doesn't mean you should just let their rootfs fill up
> > with useless files.
>
> The useless files argument really holds no water with me. We install
> many files on / that are useless in one situation or another.
> Some examples are logrotate files when logrotate isn't installed,
Do we really install logrotate files to /?

> systemd units for openrc systems and openrc init scripts for systemd
> systems.

Those files are at least needed in some scenarios.  You're talking about
files that are never used without /usr mounted.  And that can't be used
because they depend on headers in /usr/include.

>
> Talk to me about useless files on / after we put all of these, and
> possibly others I can't think of,  behind use flags.
>
> > Do you have any *real* argument?  Because 'unnecessary hack' is
> > basically your feeling of ebuild aesthetics.  My aesthetics is more
> > worried about useless clutter in /lib*.  FHS agrees with me, as you
> > yourself admitted yesterday.
>
> Any downstream hack means that we are being lazy and not reporting the
> bug upstream and asking them to fix it.
>
> This particular issue is not a big deal to any other distro and has
> never been. Shouldn't we try to get upstreams to do this if it is so
> important?
>
Because 'any other distro' usually means a binary distro that moves
files around after installing.  And splits static libraries into
separate packages.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Mike Gilbert-2
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 1:58 PM Michał Górny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And why are you trying to sneak it past most of the developers via gentoo-portage-dev instead of gentoo-dev?

Sending mail to this list is standard-procedure when submitting a
patch against the Portage repo. If you feel it needs wider review,
just say so. You don't need accuse people of being "sneaky".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

William Hubbs
In reply to this post by William Hubbs
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 12:40:07PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.

I spoke with the qa lead about this as you suggested, and he doesn't
feel that he needs to ack this from a qa standpoint.

He agrees with me that there isn't an official qa policy keeping this in
place.

So, we are back to this being a portage issue.

Thanks,

William


signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Zac Medico-2
In reply to this post by William Hubbs
On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:

> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
>
> Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
> ---
>  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
>  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
> --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
>   done
>   [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
>  
> - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
> - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
> - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
> - eqawarn "${f}"
> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
> - fi
> -
>   # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
>   local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
>   for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
>
Merged. Thanks!

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b

--
Thanks,
Zac


signature.asc (1000 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Michał Górny-5
On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:

> On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
> > ---
> >  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
> >  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
> > --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
> >   done
> >   [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
> >  
> > - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
> > - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
> > - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
> > - __vecho -ne '\n'
> > - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
> > - eqawarn "${f}"
> > - __vecho -ne '\n'
> > - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
> > - fi
> > -
> >   # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
> >   local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
> >   for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
> >
>
> Merged. Thanks!
>
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b
>
Please revert this.  I should point out that this has been vetoed
by a QA member, and is currently subject to QA vote.  Therefore, I
believe you shouldn't be making rash decisions based on patches
submitted by a single developer.  Especially given that so far nobody
else has voiced his opinion either way, so it's 1:1.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Zac Medico-2
On 11/3/19 11:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
>>> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
>>> ---
>>>  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
>>>  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
>>> index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
>>> --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
>>> +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
>>> @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
>>>   done
>>>   [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
>>>  
>>> - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
>>> - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
>>> - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
>>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
>>> - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
>>> - eqawarn "${f}"
>>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
>>> - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
>>> - fi
>>> -
>>>   # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
>>>   local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
>>>   for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
>>>
>>
>> Merged. Thanks!
>>
>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b
>>
>
> Please revert this.  I should point out that this has been vetoed
> by a QA member, and is currently subject to QA vote.  Therefore, I
> believe you shouldn't be making rash decisions based on patches
> submitted by a single developer.  Especially given that so far nobody
> else has voiced his opinion either way, so it's 1:1.
Thanks for the info. Reverted:

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=ae2a76261fd7e519bfbb3b8c4b41aa511d039245
--
Thanks,
Zac


signature.asc (1000 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Zac Medico-2
In reply to this post by William Hubbs
On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:

> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
>
> Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
> ---
>  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
>  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
> --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
>   done
>   [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
>  
> - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
> - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
> - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
> - eqawarn "${f}"
> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
> - fi
> -
>   # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
>   local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
>   for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
>
If we merge this patch then we need to make sure that we fix up the
later code which currently assumes that *.{a,la} may only exist under
/usr/lib* directories.
--
Thanks,
Zac


signature.asc (1000 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Zac Medico-2
On 11/3/19 12:32 PM, Zac Medico wrote:

> On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
>> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
>> ---
>>  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
>>  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
>> index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
>> --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
>> +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
>> @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
>>   done
>>   [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
>>  
>> - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
>> - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
>> - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
>> - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
>> - eqawarn "${f}"
>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
>> - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
>> - fi
>> -
>>   # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
>>   local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
>>   for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
>>
>
> If we merge this patch then we need to make sure that we fix up the
> later code which currently assumes that *.{a,la} may only exist under
> /usr/lib* directories.
>
We should also review the assertion that comes just before, involving
/usr/lib*/*.a and gen_usr_ldscript.
--
Thanks,
Zac


signature.asc (1000 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

William Hubbs
In reply to this post by Zac Medico-2
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:18:40PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:

> On 11/3/19 11:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> >>> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
> >>> ---
> >>>  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
> >>>  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> >>> index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
> >>> --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> >>> +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> >>> @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
> >>>   done
> >>>   [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
> >>>  
> >>> - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
> >>> - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
> >>> - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
> >>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> >>> - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
> >>> - eqawarn "${f}"
> >>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> >>> - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
> >>> - fi
> >>> -
> >>>   # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
> >>>   local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
> >>>   for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
> >>>
> >>
> >> Merged. Thanks!
> >>
> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b
> >>
> >
> > Please revert this.  I should point out that this has been vetoed
> > by a QA member, and is currently subject to QA vote.  Therefore, I
> > believe you shouldn't be making rash decisions based on patches
> > submitted by a single developer.  Especially given that so far nobody
> > else has voiced his opinion either way, so it's 1:1.
You being a qa member doesn't have a lot to do with this mgorny. you
know there was no official policy when I posted this, and as far as I
know there is not one now.

William

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Michał Górny-5
On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 15:26 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:18:40PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 11/3/19 11:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > > On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> > > > > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <[hidden email]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 ----------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > > > > index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
> > > > > --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > > > > +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> > > > > @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
> > > > >   done
> > > > >   [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
> > > > >  
> > > > > - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
> > > > > - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
> > > > > - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
> > > > > - __vecho -ne '\n'
> > > > > - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
> > > > > - eqawarn "${f}"
> > > > > - __vecho -ne '\n'
> > > > > - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la) belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
> > > > > - fi
> > > > > -
> > > > >   # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
> > > > >   local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
> > > > >   for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Merged. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please revert this.  I should point out that this has been vetoed
> > > by a QA member, and is currently subject to QA vote.  Therefore, I
> > > believe you shouldn't be making rash decisions based on patches
> > > submitted by a single developer.  Especially given that so far nobody
> > > else has voiced his opinion either way, so it's 1:1.
>
> You being a qa member doesn't have a lot to do with this mgorny. you
> know there was no official policy when I posted this, and as far as I
> know there is not one now.
>
That is a really poor argument.  Something that's respected for 10+
years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm
concerned.  Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy
(at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere
in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad-
hoc because it stands in his way.

I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward
even though:

1) I've objected to the change itself,

2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list,
and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even
knowing that this is happening,

3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact
on users and that involve much effort in reverting that.

So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch
be accepted because only one person objected?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Michael 'veremitz' Everitt
On 03/11/19 21:37, Michał Górny wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 15:26 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> You being a qa member doesn't have a lot to do with this mgorny. you
>> know there was no official policy when I posted this, and as far as I
>> know there is not one now.
>>
> That is a really poor argument.  Something that's respected for 10+
> years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm
> concerned.  Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy
> (at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere
> in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad-
> hoc because it stands in his way.
>
> I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward
> even though:
>
> 1) I've objected to the change itself,
>
> 2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list,
> and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even
> knowing that this is happening,
>
> 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact
> on users and that involve much effort in reverting that.
>
> So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch
> be accepted because only one person objected?
>
Children, please take this off-list ...


signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

William Hubbs
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:37:29PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:

> That is a really poor argument.  Something that's respected for 10+
> years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm
> concerned.  Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy
> (at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere
> in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad-
> hoc because it stands in his way.
>
> I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward
> even though:
>
> 1) I've objected to the change itself,
You have the right to object, as does anyone, but what I take very
strong issue with is your tone and your way of dealing with the
situation. An objection with another alternative would have gone a lot
better with me.

> 2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list,
> and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even
> knowing that this is happening,

You rudely attacked me and accused me of something I wasn't
trying to do.

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/d5be93dc7767f2256041eb2cb54b8b38
 
Then floppym responded and advised again that this is the place to send
 patches for portage.

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/af686e9d2d94a9b940f8f71efdf73b2b

So, that is why this point wasn't really considered.

> 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact
> on users and that involve much effort in reverting that.
 
 Maybe the way around this is to stop building static libs for the
 ebuilds that call gen_usr_ldscript. Once that happens and
 gen_usr_ldscript isn't called in the tree any more, this patch could be
 applied.

> So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch
> be accepted because only one person objected?

This is one of our problems as a distro. there isn't a way to
measure concensus.

I also don't like your tone in your response to Zac merging the patch.

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/1abfd0499e514b7d6b70b709e9e3ae18

If I say out here that since I'm a council member I'm above you and zac
should listen to me and apply the patch is that appropriate? I imagine
not, so I feel the same way about you bringing your qa membership into
the discussion.
In my opinion, all that kind of thing leads to is people becoming angry.

I'm going to ask you to close https://bugs.gentoo.org/699254. I honestly
do not feel that this is an appropriate way to deal with this situation.

William


signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /

Michał Górny-5
On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 04:15 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:

> I also don't like your tone in your response to Zac merging the patch.
>
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/1abfd0499e514b7d6b70b709e9e3ae18
>
> If I say out here that since I'm a council member I'm above you and zac
> should listen to me and apply the patch is that appropriate? I imagine
> not, so I feel the same way about you bringing your qa membership into
> the discussion.
> In my opinion, all that kind of thing leads to is people becoming angry.
>
> I'm going to ask you to close https://bugs.gentoo.org/699254. I honestly
> do not feel that this is an appropriate way to deal with this situation.
>
Excuse me but are you serious?  So first you choose to claim that
something is not policy because you don't see it stamped.  Then you
demand that QA doesn't vote on stamping it because... why exactly?
Because it's 'not an appropriate way', apparently.

So what's the appropriate way?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment