On 20.09.2015 18:57, hasufell wrote: > On 09/20/2015 06:47 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: >> On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote: >>> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: >>>> Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl. >>> >>> That's not possible, because in order to introduce the USE flag, we have >>> to break the dep-graph on ~arch temporarily (for 'libressl' USE flag >>> only ofc), because of circular deps. >>> >>> I am working on restoring it now. This does not affect stable branch at >>> all and no one who is not using 'libressl' USE flag (which is >>> practically impossible currently). >>> >> >> Yet the way you execute your plan now violates several devmanual >> policies. Is there any reason for that rush? >> > > Any reason to bother me? There have been several threads about libressl > and the overlay has been up for more than one year I think. If you have > a suggestions, say it. > There has been an ongoing discussion after you announced your plan. Instead of getting your suggestion actually reviewed and probably improve your plan on a further iteration, you're creating accomplished facts.
>>> If you have useful comments regarding the transition, please speak up. >>> >> >> I remember you being one of the devs who considered code reviewing as a >> useful tool. >> Why don't you add a pull request to Gentoo's github mirror and let other >> devs review and ack it there? >> > > Because then I could simply give up with ~550 packages, where for most > of them the change is a two-liner in RDEPEND. It is common in gentoo to > not ask every single maintainer for tree-wide changes. The python herd > does that too. > What about the packages that are not part of "most"? Some include patches, that haven't seen any testing by their downstream maintainers. See 1fbc7d68335e35af898606f1dfdaedf9bf6bea14 or 9c9eff93fe71c5b446df8367d69c407d62811b05. > If I don't know how to do something or if the changes are non-trivial, > then I will definitely open a bug/PR. > > Again: this all happens in unstable arch and practically effects no one, > because people cannot effectively enable the USE flag yet. > And after you're done, people will argument: "Should we really change 500 packages again?" This renders any further discussion redundant and is not how an open development process should look like. - Manuel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
