1 |
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:13:35 +1100 |
2 |
Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> What is the *real* risk that kde-apps/kcalc builds against stable |
5 |
> dev-libs/gmp but then starts producing funny numbers at runtime? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Let's put it another way - assume we're stabilising a new version of |
8 |
> dev-libs/gmp instead. Should we test already-stable kde-apps/kcalc |
9 |
> first? What about the other hundred reverse dependencies? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating banning runtime testing. I just |
12 |
> think that, considering the state of the stable tree, we should consider |
13 |
> very careful in which situations we actually gain value from it. That's |
14 |
> for another thread, however. I deliberately worded the document so that |
15 |
> the final decision on the exact level of testing required (runtime or |
16 |
> otherwise) is between the person filing the stabilisation request and |
17 |
> the person actioning it. |
18 |
|
19 |
This IME rather depends on the nature of the package in question, and the |
20 |
general nature of its dependencies. |
21 |
|
22 |
Usually you can make the conjecture that only direct dependents of |
23 |
each other can affect each other via changes. |
24 |
|
25 |
But spooky-action-at-a-distance can also happen, where in |
26 |
|
27 |
a -> b -> c |
28 |
|
29 |
C changes |
30 |
B is unaffected |
31 |
A is broken |
32 |
|
33 |
Though it makes more sense to not have a blanket "recusively check dependents" |
34 |
policy, and perhaps either have a "Test these things when I change" list, |
35 |
or an inverse "Test me when X changes" list. |
36 |
|
37 |
The latter of these is not entirely unlike the need to add new := slotdeps |
38 |
for things that didn't need to depend on Perl, but needed to be rebuilt when perl is. |
39 |
|
40 |
(Except s/rebuilt/retest/ ) |