| 1 |
I'm not a member of QA team or libpng maintainer, but hopefully I'm not |
| 2 |
going to write something horribly wrong here. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some |
| 5 |
lessons from previous, um... "disruptive" upgrade (1.2 -> 1.4), I'd have |
| 6 |
some questions: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
1) Are we going to have a tinderbox run *before* libpng-1.5 gets keyworded? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
2) If the upgrade is non-trivial, i.e. just emerge -uDNa world and |
| 11 |
revdep-rebuild isn't going to fix it, will we have an upgrade guide, |
| 12 |
possibly as a news item? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
3) Can we do something to make catching libpng problems easier? As |
| 15 |
Samuli pointed out in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354479 |
| 16 |
there is a predictable compilation warning. How about making portage |
| 17 |
print it as a QA warning, so more people can report the issues without |
| 18 |
even emerging libpng-1.5 on their systems? That may be a good backup |
| 19 |
option for the tinderbox too. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
4) What have we learned from libpng 1.2 -> 1.4 upgrade? I'd just like to |
| 22 |
be better informed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Finally, it seems that hard work on --as-needed and automatic fixing of |
| 25 |
.la files is going to make the upgrade experience better now, right? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
P.S. The 1.2 -> 1.4 upgrade wasn't really bad for me, but I guess it |
| 30 |
could be frustrating for some people, and I just wonder if we can make |
| 31 |
it better. |
Archives