| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 04:17:49 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I can also imagine doing something drastic like hourly depcleans, if |
| 5 |
> that's what it too, too, after dealing with a 1900-pkg-depclean! Yikes! |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It does sound like a lot, but when you have minimal chroots with only 9 |
| 8 |
entries in world, something like say, khtml gets bumped, and I test it |
| 9 |
because this line brings it to my attention: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/kde-frameworks/khtml/khtml-5.39.0.ebuild#n56 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's easily 300 odd new deps. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Only to be cleaned maybe hours later so I can ensure my tests don't |
| 16 |
fail due to missing deps. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Admittedly, half this stuff I probably don't *need* to test, I |
| 19 |
sometimes re-test things just because somebody keyworded/stabilized a |
| 20 |
package ... but my "Has changed" and "is perl" =-> "something broken? |
| 21 |
Test me maybe?!" tools are pretty senseless in this regard. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Besides, a broad brush is better anyway. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And as long as I don't slack off for too many days, that backlog is |
| 26 |
pretty manageable. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Not even doing reverse-dep testing, that's ... uh. Yeah, I'll let |
| 29 |
toralf handle that, I'll just make sure the latest perl versions aren't |
| 30 |
breaking things for now. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Sometime soon I'm hoping to move on to testing against development |
| 33 |
releases of Perl again. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
But eh, mountain.shovel while true; |
Archives