On Monday, 11 July 2016 9:59:58 AM AEST Chris Lamb wrote:
> I guess our differences on this issue are three-fold:

I thought the only difference is issues' severity....

> Firstly, network access is not harmless in that it, at the very least, it
> leaks the privacy of the developer building something failing some
> variation of the DFSG "dissident" test.

No disagreement here. Yet I had to remind that build environment is offline 
hence this is only a little problem.

> (Furthermore, network access can naturally lead to vulnerabilities,
> although I'm not claiming that any of the CC'd packages are doing so, am
> speaking only to the principle.)

Noted. I'm not against fixing the problem but there are more important issues 
to prioritise.

> Secondly, retaining such tests provide little value as checks of the
> correct functioning of the package given that the package does not FTBFS if
> network access is restricted entirely.

Correct. However removing those tests is an effort that can be done without 

> In this sense, they engender a false sense of security about the correct
> working of the package which is, again, not harmless from a quality
> assurance point of view.

Trade-off is simple: either disable tests entirely or (for now) ignore some 
tests that try to access network from offline environment. I certainly prefer 
the latter until I can find time to selectively disable tests. I certainly do 
not want issues with inflated severity in my queue...

> Lastly, they aren't really "post-build" as you suggest - they are surely an
> integral part of build.

Yes, _optional_ part of the build. ;)  We don't have to run 'em but we want 

> I really don't like to be a stickler for quoting Policy (and using that as
> a blunt and inflexible instrument of change/agenda), but I guess that
> redefining tests as "post-build" does have the sneaky advantage in that
> they aren't simple obvious violations of the paragraph in question. :)

To me it looks more like bureaucratic exercise is enforcing policy: 
"prisoners should not attempt to leave locked cells" while reality is that 
they can _try_ but attempt would be futile.

I recognise the problems and I agree to fix them but I am not convinced that 
those issues should be treated with highest priority. This way or another 
practical implications are mild. I hope it makes sense...

All the best,
 Dmitry Smirnov.


Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is
        -- George Orwell

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to