Re: [fink-core] --build-as-nobody by default.

[Alexander H. <ale...@gm...>]

On 4/14/12 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.
>
And I'm thinking we may not need to specify a minimum fink version for 
use of the BuildAsNobody field, since packages that use BuildAsNobody: 
false would get the _same_ behavior from old finks.

-- 
Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
Fink User Liaison
http://finkakh.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/got-job/