Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Disarm FEATURES=distcc-pump

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 17.07.2018 o godzinie 23∶11 +0800, użytkownik konsolebox
napisał:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:45 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > W dniu pon, 16.07.2018 o godzinie 13∶16 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> > napisał:
> > > On 07/16/2018 02:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > The pump mode of distcc has been causing issues for years now,
> > > > and upstream does even attempt to fix it. Disarm the FEATURES so that
> > > > people do not have to do that themselves after discovering all the bugs.
> > > > ---
> > > >  bin/phase-functions.sh     | 17 -----------------
> > > >  man/make.conf.5            |  5 ++++-
> > > >  pym/_emerge/EbuildPhase.py |  2 +-
> > > >  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Maybe we should simply support RESTRICT="distcc-pump" so that
> > > incompatible ebuilds can disable it? I don't see that many bug reports
> > > about it, and a forums search turned up this recent thread which
> > > suggests that some people may be using it:
> >
> > I did.  There are only two reasons you don't see them often:
> >
> > 1. because not that many people use distcc,
> >
> > 2. because when they do, they quickly learn how broken it is and disable
> > it.
>
> It's been just a month and a half since I rebuilt a Gentoo system with
> distcc-pump, and that system ended up running well.
>
> I don't disable distcc-pump quickly. At least not globally. I only
> disable it in packages that don't compile with it.
>
> > RESTRICT won't be helpful because distcc-pump is also capable of silent
> > miscompilations and indirect breakage.  If you used it at least once, my
> > only advice is to rebuild your entire system.
>
> I believe giving a general warning whenever distcc-pump is used is
> enough. Users should be allowed to decide whether they'll use it or
> not. There are users who know when to use it, and are capable of
> managing build-time inconsistencies.

Sure, provided that they are warned that any suspicious bug reports will
be rejected.  Developers have better things to do than try to figure out
whether some unmaintained-for-years, half-broken feature may have been
the cause of a misbehaving system.

>
> Saying that distcc-pump is capable of silent miscompilations and
> indirect breakage I think is also an aggressive and ungrounded
> presumption.

It's not a 'presumption', it's experience.  Yes, it's possible that
the breakages I've seen don't happen at the moment.  But given
the generic idea that distcc-pump can cause configure checks to misfire
without actually causing build-time breakage, it's entirely possible.

> Also, if upstream suddenly decides to fix whatever needs to be fixed
> on this, it would need another request to put the feature back, which
> I find would be very hard to be granted.
>
> I also agree that making specific packages use RESTRICT is more appropriate.
>

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny