Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:02:57 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in > | > the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right. > | > | The general consensus over the years has been that if something > | cannot be fixed due to portage problems, then we do what necessary to > | warn users about it, but keep the package. In this regard also look > | at various dependency cycles, and/or use flag dependencies. > > The general consensus has been to implement the best available > workaround, if one is doable, and just remove the thing where it's not.
Where is this general consensus documented (other than an email sent out a few days ago). I'd have to go with Paul on this assumption. I don't see the problem with keeping a package such as stu's in portage as long as it doesn't affect other users. Do you honesty expect that we will get a sterile tree out of this? Please focus your QA efforts are more important and visible issues. Going on a witch hunt to fix one problem compared to the bigger issues we know we have is simply silly. This is really starting to look like a power issue rather than a QA issue. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
