| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On 11 May 2003 23:33:20 +0200 |
| 3 |
foser <foser@×××××××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Anyway, what defines an ebuild as working (this is a |
| 6 |
> problem in general) : does it build, does it build on a clean install |
| 7 |
> with any possible combination of USE flags, does it run fine for 1 |
| 8 |
> month on someones production server ? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Heads up those of you who go playing with stable (ie KEYWORDS="x86" ) |
| 12 |
packages. Always make sure to run through all packages that -depend- on |
| 13 |
it as well.. . Its a headache, but you'll need to check that the newly |
| 14 |
introduced USE flag you just slapped on because that gnome, guile, |
| 15 |
esound, jpeg, png, support is really just optional... Yes? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It might not be so. if a package Foo, depends on bar being built with |
| 18 |
suopport for baz, making baz an optional thing is a no-no. And even if |
| 19 |
portage gets a way to track optional dependencies (foo depends on bar |
| 20 |
with baz ) you'd still have to find all those builds. No, thats not |
| 21 |
what testing is for, testing is not your bed to find the dependencies |
| 22 |
you broke. Thats what you are supposed to do. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Just a minor rant from somone who has seen a lot of people request some |
| 26 |
USE flags without researching. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
//Spider |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
begin .signature |
| 33 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 34 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 35 |
end |
Archives