1 |
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 17.38 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." ha |
2 |
scritto: |
3 |
> 1) Are we going to have a tinderbox run *before* libpng-1.5 gets keyworded? |
4 |
|
5 |
Absolutely. |
6 |
|
7 |
> 2) If the upgrade is non-trivial, i.e. just emerge -uDNa world and |
8 |
> revdep-rebuild isn't going to fix it, will we have an upgrade guide, |
9 |
> possibly as a news item? |
10 |
|
11 |
As Samuli said we're planning on making it as "standard" as possible, |
12 |
similarly to what's done with Berkeley DB. This is going to take a bit |
13 |
more work than a standard bump but will avoid further breakage. |
14 |
|
15 |
Slotted installation is the thing that makes most sense, especially |
16 |
since upstream helps us there already by versioning the symbols. |
17 |
|
18 |
> 3) Can we do something to make catching libpng problems easier? As |
19 |
> Samuli pointed out in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354479 |
20 |
> there is a predictable compilation warning. How about making portage |
21 |
> print it as a QA warning, so more people can report the issues without |
22 |
> even emerging libpng-1.5 on their systems? That may be a good backup |
23 |
> option for the tinderbox too. |
24 |
|
25 |
Tinderbox is also going to report all those warnings to me, which means |
26 |
I'll open them to the bugzilla. While it might not cover 100% use cases, |
27 |
I doubt adding the warning to Portage's "reported" ones is going to |
28 |
help, based on the experience of not even being able to get |
29 |
fortify-sources "will overflow" warnings to be acted upon. |
30 |
|
31 |
> Finally, it seems that hard work on --as-needed and automatic fixing of |
32 |
> .la files is going to make the upgrade experience better now, right? |
33 |
|
34 |
Most definitely, yes. It could have been better, to be honest, but it's |
35 |
definitely not going to be the many-tiers failure we have seen before. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
39 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |