1 |
On 03/28/2010 06:04 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Basically you are saying that NONE tested that package on the arch until |
4 |
> the stablerequest. That's quite wrong and it should mean that the arch |
5 |
> should be ~ only, since they are stabling packages that they first |
6 |
> tested the day they stable them. |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
Well, keep in mind that if a package is marked ~arch, it is getting |
10 |
used, but for the most part it isn't getting used with other packages |
11 |
that are stable. So, if your package is ~arch for a period of time that |
12 |
gives you strong evidence that it works with openrc, but no evidence as |
13 |
to whether it works with baselayout-1, which is what stable users have. |
14 |
|
15 |
So, I would argue that for any package to be stabilized on an arch it |
16 |
should be tested on that arch on a stable platform. |
17 |
|
18 |
amd64 has had the policy that any dev can stabilize if they've tested it |
19 |
on a stable amd64 system, and this hasn't really caused problems. |
20 |
|
21 |
Perhaps we should encourage understaffed arch teams to recruit more arch |
22 |
testers if possible? Then any dev could ask an arch tester to test on |
23 |
some platform that they don't have access to, and then stabilize |
24 |
accordingly? |
25 |
|
26 |
For arch-neutral packages a more liberal policy might be possible, but |
27 |
keep in mind that the set of stable packages is not the same across |
28 |
archs. So, unless you check carefully you might not be testing the same |
29 |
library dependency versions from one stable platform to another, and |
30 |
that could cause problems. |
31 |
|
32 |
Rich |