On Monday 27 February 2006 18:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE="1" rm -fr / in global > | > scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval > | > to fix it? > | > | Use some common sense when showing an example please. We all know > | that something that stupid needs to be delt with quickly. > > If we all recognise that level of stupidity, please explain how the > heck this got into the tree: > > http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/sys-apps/bootstrap >_cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
Probably because although it isn't a good ebuild it still works and does not violate the sandbox. While it does things in the wrong way/place it does not do the wrong things. I do not think that anyone would argue against QA (or other developers) fixing urgent big tree breakages. (and rm -rf / would certainly qualify). What I see as the argument is that QA should show a degree of flexibility in it's policies, and not just enforce because of the policy. This especially in those cases where there is no way to provide the ebuild without breaking policy, or doing so would mean a greater inconvenience to the users. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpAaY4gCI1d4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
