On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:24:57 +
Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote:
> Straw man anyone? I know Guy Fawkes night is coming up here in the UK ... ;)
I love you, but please, less trolling.
This is a developer discussion venue, not a place for cheap-shots like
reddit.
pgpVMFPNhhCyl.pgp
> > TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time,
> > does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage
> > team?
> To avoid these sorts of questions in the future,
[snip since offtopic]
> In this case, whether or not this is "policy" is beside
2. Those other files don't get installed to the root filesystem on the
systems that we're talking about.
I do not understand what you think I'm referring to and which files you
are talking about.
The way I'm thinking of a root fs is, /bin, maybe /boot, /etc, /lib* and /sbin.
Most junk
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 06:17:55PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/4/19 2:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > This is a whole other thread I've been talking about for years, but if
> > we want to be concerned about dumping "garbage" on people's limited root
> > file systems, there are
On 04/11/19 23:17, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/4/19 2:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> This is a whole other thread I've been talking about for years, but if
>> we want to be concerned about dumping "garbage" on people's limited root
>> file systems, there are other things we need to
On 11/4/19 2:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
This is a whole other thread I've been talking about for years, but if
we want to be concerned about dumping "garbage" on people's limited root
file systems, there are other things we need to re-consider, like our
notion that we have to install small
Hi Kent,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:50:09AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the
> > time it would take to vote on each of these policies formally, document
> >
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 02:05:19PM -0600, Michael Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > That way is not building static libraries at all. If we go that way as
> > a distro the support for forcing static libraries into /usr/lib* is not
> > needed because we
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the
> time it would take to vote on each of these policies formally, document
> them on the wiki, and then move the related checks to ::gentoo/metadata
> where other
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs wrote:
> That way is not building static libraries at all. If we go that way as
> a distro the support for forcing static libraries into /usr/lib* is not
> needed because we would just not allow static libraries.
>
As an end user, I would be
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:53:44AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/4/19 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time,
> > does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage
> > team?
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:07:43AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/4/19 11:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > I did request a QA vote to confirm it. William demands that I close it
>
> Take a page out of the WilliamH playbook and completely ignore him.
As I said on the other list, the
On 11/4/19 11:02 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
I did request a QA vote to confirm it. William demands that I close it
Take a page out of the WilliamH playbook and completely ignore him.
On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 10:53 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> In this case, whether or not this is "policy" is beside the point. No
> one else wants to remove this check because it's useful and prevents
> developers from accidentally dumping garbage onto users' (often limited)
> root
On 11/4/19 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hi,
TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time,
does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage
team?
To avoid these sorts of questions in the future, it might be worth the
time it would take to
Hi,
TL;DR: If a QA check is enforced by Portage for a reasonably long time,
does it constitute policy? Or can it be changed unilaterally by Portage
team?
William Hubbs has recently attempted to remove one of Portage's QA
checks [1]. Not only we disagree on the change in question, we also
16 matches
Mail list logo
