On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:16 PM Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> This is retarded, stop wasting my time.
>
There is nothing retarded about shared /home directories. They're
pretty common in the real world.
> >> I've already got responses from two QA members. This thread is pretty
> >> hard to miss.
> >
> > Well, then why go posting stuff like "guess we'll be triggering a
> > warning after all?"
>
> If these two things are logically connected, I don't see it.
If you're working with QA to change the QA checks, then you won't be
triggering warnings.
> >> I'm working on a patch for the install-qa-check.d check
> >> and I'm sure I'll get more when I post it.
> >
> > Are you just allowing it to not create the directory, or are we
> > considering patching it to allow creating stuff under /home? It would
> > seem that the policy would also need updating in that case, but
> > probably not the former.
>
> The patch will make an exception for acct-user packages only; for /home,
> /home/${PN}, and /home/${PN}/.keep*. In other words, it makes things
> work exactly how they did before the GLEP81 eclass started keepdir'ing
> the home directory.
IMO this isn't the right direction to go in, but we can always put it
on the council agenda. Maintaining the status quo (pre-QA-check) in
the interim isn't unreasonable, nor is keeping your package behavior
as it is for now. Obviously this issue has been around for some time.
I realize that you didn't invent it.
I guess this is the sort of thing that people will tend to disagree
on. At least Gentoo doesn't force this nonsense down my throat. :)
--
Rich
