FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-08-2009, 10:36 PM
Richard Freeman
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

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...
 
Old 11-09-2009, 11:36 AM
Maciej Mrozowski
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 of November 2009 23:19:13 Mike Frysinger wrote:

> > So, you didn't get my point. It must be true then, what they say about
> > geeks and social skills...
>
> i dont think your point is relevant to this thread
> -mike

Indeed it is - it's not about what's been said, but about the way it's been
said.

cheers
MM
 
Old 11-09-2009, 07:10 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Monday 09 November 2009 07:36:31 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Sunday 08 of November 2009 23:19:13 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > So, you didn't get my point. It must be true then, what they say about
> > > geeks and social skills...
> >
> > i dont think your point is relevant to this thread
>
> Indeed it is - it's not about what's been said, but about the way it's been
> said.

except that this thread has largely been timid. the issue is patrick cant
seem to accept the fact that laziness is no excuse to add crap to the tree.
we shouldnt need to tell him how much we love him unrelated to his crap
adding. go buy a teddy bear if your confidence needs reinforcing, or find
some baby boomers to raise you.
-mike
 
Old 11-09-2009, 10:57 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:36:00 Richard Freeman wrote:
> 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?

the gentoo dev handbook lists this as a common ebuild error

> I don't think quizzes can be considered policy since by design their answers
> aren't written anywhere.

the exact answer is generally not found, but the info to arrive there should
largely be documented and/or obvious. the issue raised is even worse because
it is almost verbatim from the quiz. any prospective dev who got this wrong
would have been forced to go back and review things. i.e. it isnt acceptable
for newbies, so there's no excuse for people who are supposed to be past that
point -- especially considering they're doing it knowingly.

> 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

since it must have been changed in order to be bumped, there is no excuse for
having added it like this in the first place.
-mike
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org