From: David R. M. <dr...@fi...> - 2012-04-14 16:48:04
|
On Apr 14, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > On 4/14/12 9:04 AM, David R. Morrison wrote: >> On Apr 14, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Max Horn wrote: >> >>>> Since fink ignores .info file fields it doesn't recognize (at least for booleans), maintainers can mark their appropriate packages with "BuildAsNobody: false" right now. >>> but then they fail validation. I still think that's the wrong way, and the only "advantage" it has is that it allows us is that we give in to impatience. >>> >>> Really, the proper way is so simple: disable ban by default, make a release, then give maintainers a last stern warning and a grace period. >>> >> Another possibility is to make a release in which the validator recognizes the BAN boolean field in the .info file, but that the field has no effect yet when compiling. >> >> That way, maintainers actually *can* mark things known not to work during the transition period. >> >> -- Dave >> >> >> >> > I agree. I'd actually forgotten about the validation warnings (-> errors in maintainer mode) about nonexistent fields. > > Making BAN default is qualitatively quite different from some of our earlier changes. It's not, for example, like getting rid of Patch for PatchFile where we could say "Patch is deprecated in favor of PatchFile" for a while and then get rid of Patch, since there's no real possibility for an intermediate advisory state: we're either building as fink-bld by default, or not. > > I'd propose putting the validator modification in a fink-0.32.6 release, since we're not yet implementing a major functional change at this point. Sounds good to me. -- Dave |