| 1 |
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:00:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved correctly, |
| 4 |
> > that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded stuff |
| 5 |
> > not listed in the bug. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before filing |
| 8 |
> bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for the "check |
| 9 |
> whether we got all deps right" part. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
As a maintainer I can tell you that when you drop keywords on B because |
| 12 |
it needs non keyworded A, then drop keywords on C because it needs |
| 13 |
latest B then drop keywords on D because it needs latest C, you have |
| 14 |
completely forgotten that some arches need A, which ones, etc. There are |
| 15 |
scripts for this, and I hope arch teams that like to have a list use |
| 16 |
them. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As occasionally doing fbsd keywording, I almost never read nor use a |
| 19 |
list that is provided since the above scenario often occurs (or at |
| 20 |
least used to). Instead of this, I do a depth-first keywording of |
| 21 |
packages repoman tells are missing. The deepest package is in the |
| 22 |
latest tab of my terminal emulator :) I'll run repoman anyway, |
| 23 |
and this approach allows a double checking. Also, since this means I'll |
| 24 |
start committing from the leaves of the depgraph, this ensures no |
| 25 |
package has broken deps between commits (with the exception of circular |
| 26 |
deps of course). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
A. |
Archives