See the tracker for information. Please drop the eblits, and either inline the code within ebuilds or commit an eclass for this. Per-package eclasses have been discussed within PMS team today and they won't happen.
It's worth noting that the pkg_pretend phase for glibc gets skipped with portage-2.3.3. This version of portage does not define FILESDIR during the depend phase, so pretend is not added to the DEFINED_PHASES variable.
Relevant commits: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo/historical.git/commit/?id=59aa2a746e27d80ce870b6ae05f1fce3a29ab9b1 https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=297d7590ddea0f71cbe2e94ac95a56ead4df478e
<QA hat> We will assume maintainer timeout in 30 days and inline the eblits into ebuilds if the issue is not solved until then. </QA hat>
there is no timeout here. don't screw with these ebuilds as inlining them is not an acceptable replacement.
If you do not agree with inlining those ebuilds, then you have 30 days to provide a toolchain-glibc.eclass replacing eblits.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #5) cut your BS "ultimatums". you need to consult the COC for how to work with people. retroactively implementing changes and breaking ebuilds in the tree sure is convenient. as Mike pointed out, the only thing that breaks is pkg_pretend. everything else works because of how ebuilds are turned into packages. you have no justification for screwing with packages you don't understand.
FYI, this is not 'my' ultimatum but QA team decision. Anyway, I'm tired of your dismissive attitude towards QA and lack of cooperation over the years. You know the appeal procedure if you're unhappy with anything. Please direct your further insulting comments to comrel.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #7) you're confusing (or perhaps purposefully conflating?) disagreement with insults. just because you make a claim X and someone disagrees with it does not make it an insult. as highlighted in the autoconf bug, the foundation of this argument is wrong wrt src phases.
I will be pushing the posted changes shortly. However, before I do that I would like to reiterate a few points to avoid misunderstandings. 1. This bug has been open on 2016-06-19 (i.e. 278 days ago), which I presume is the time when you were officially informed of the PMS violation. You have been given a 30 day advance warning, and 7 day period to review the patches. During this time you have not raised any factual concerns about the proposed changes, nor shown any interest in solving the issue. Nevertheless, you have replied to this bug and the relevant threads, which I take as a confirmation that you have received the notices. 2. This action is performed on behalf of the QA team, using the power of maintainer override specified in GLEP 48. You have the right to appeal the QA action to the Council. 3. I should point out that whether you decide to appeal it or not, the QA resolution holds until it is overridden by the Council. You are not permitted to revert the QA commit, or to reintroduce the violation that it solved. If you find any issues with the pushed commits, you can ask the QA members to temporarily revert the change. However, you are not permitted to do that yourself without explicit QA approval. 4. I should point out that while the changes have been prepared and are being pushed on the basis of PMS violation, the relevant code is also violating the recent QA policy for ebuild code location [1]. I would like to explicitly ask you not to introduce any new code that violates this new policy. [1]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/c036527c89c3cf1b303126cb849bf25a
commit 7afe99bc9ad24520e698e51b0bbf0394f0ad63d8 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: Thu Mar 16 11:01:40 2017 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: Fri Mar 24 20:39:44 2017 sys-libs/glibc: [QA] Convert from eblits to eclass, #586422
