| 1 |
On 9/29/13 2:41 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to |
| 3 |
> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a |
| 4 |
> library, especially when this is a non-maintainer stablereq. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
+1 to the reminder. It would be great to hear about specific examples of |
| 7 |
problems happening more frequently recently. FWIW I didn't notice such |
| 8 |
tendency, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Arch teams do not test them, so this is the business of the maintainer |
| 11 |
> or the dev who requested stabilization. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This is new to me. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Do you have anything official to point to so that you could back your claim? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
See e.g. |
| 18 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/x86/arch-testers-faq.xml#steptest>: |
| 19 |
"If the package is a library, emerge a couple of packages that use the |
| 20 |
library to ensure they still work with the new version (best option: all |
| 21 |
that depend on it and have a stable version)." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I also created a tool |
| 24 |
(<http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/arch-tools.git;a=blob;f=reverse-dependencies.py;hb=HEAD>) |
| 25 |
to assist arch teams in testing reverse dependencies. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As far as I know the person opening the bug does not guarantee anything. |
| 28 |
Furthermore, the bugs I've filed using an automated tool explicitly ask |
| 29 |
for maintainer's opinion before adding arches. They are only filed for |
| 30 |
packages with no open bugs by the way. The person stabilizing the |
| 31 |
package is ultimately responsible for breakages - otherwise why would we |
| 32 |
have dedicated arch teams instead of letting anyone stabilize anything? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Paweł |
Archives