Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Grobian <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Package testing -- Automated initiative
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:16:53
Message-Id: 42FF988C.1000003@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Package testing -- Automated initiative by Finn Thain
Finn Thain wrote:
>> When everything goes fine, no email notification is being sent out. A >> convenient log structure would, however, make it possible to see which >> packages and USE-flag combinations successfully passed through. >> Providing this log via a web-page would be a useful thing. > > Would tinderbox help?
As far as I know about tinderbox, it is more than just a building system. It is a complete procedure where the tree is being closed during compilation time, then only reopened when everything compiles.
> >> - Comments are welcome, as well as expressions of worry on my mental state. > > Good thinking! > > The chroot idea is a good one because the process lends itself to > parallelism. That is, you might have one test box/chroot for, (maybe in > order of importance) > > - unstable empty tree (all deps every time) > - stable empty tree builds (same) > - unstable cumulative tree builds > - stable cumulative tree builds
This is indeed a good plan, as this allows some more responsive and thorough testing to occur next to each other.
> I see the last ones as being fairly important, because the cumulative > (emerge -Du) trees will have the best throughput, for quicky finding any > glaring, slap-forehead kind of bugs/bad keywords (i.e. low fruit). > > The cumulative tree machines would also be an efficient choice for your > reverse-dependency idea (perhaps to only one level of indirection).
Good points, thanks! -- Fabian Groffen eBuild && Porting Gentoo for Mac OS X -- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list