[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/libusbhp: ChangeLog Manifest lib
From:       Sergey Popov <pinkbyte () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2015-02-27 14:05:00
Message-ID: 54F0798C.8020802 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


16.02.2015 14:43, Patrick Lauer пишет:
> On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
>>>>
>>>> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>> patrick     14/12/31 05:21:11
>>>>>
>>>>>   Removed:              ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
>>>>>   
>>>>>                         metadata.xml
>>>>>   
>>>>>   Log:
>>>>>   QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
>>>>
>>>> you do not go reverting code without actually talking to people.  if
>>>> you feel like a revert is necessary, then file a bug.  putting a "QA"
>>>> tag at the start of the commit message doesn't give you a pass.
>>>
>>> Normally I'd side with you on this...but I'm fairly sure repoman doesn't
>>> let you commit packages to the tree missing these headers. This leads me
>>> to believe you didn't use repoman, or ignored it?
>>
>> feel free to grab the code i originally committed and run `repoman
>> full` yourself.  no fatal errors.  in fact you can see the generated
>> tags in my commit message.
> 
> Well, AutoRepoman triggered on it.
> 
> Testing for fun on a random ebuild:
> 
> RepoMan scours the neighborhood...
>   ebuild.badheader              1
>    dev-db/hyperdex/hyperdex-1.6.0-r1.ebuild: Invalid Gentoo Copyright on line: 
> 1
> 
> 
> Which again leads me to the question:
> 
> Why are these checks not properly fatal?
> 
> (And I really do not like having to repeat myself ...)
> 
>>
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
>> complete bs.  anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
>> Gentoo is completely unenforceable.  we have no CLA.  this was
>> patrick/QA wasting people's time to check a meaningless box.
>> -mike
> 
> As others have pointed out, policy is policy. Don't shoot the massager.
> 
> Since I can't just fix the copyright (that would be more wrong) I opted for the 
> easy way out - remove offending bits.
> 
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Patrick
> 

Your logic is almost flawless. Almost, because you forgot the valuable
part of our policy - notifying maintainer.

If your package will be dropped because you violate QA rules - well,
things can happen.

But if it will be done silently, i am pretty sure that you will be
angry. I would be, definitely.

I am not asking for justification of every action, that QA doing by
maintainer - that would be totally wrong. Just follow our policy:
"Serious issue -> fix and after that notify maintainer".

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]