1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 08:36, Allen Parker wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Avenj, as I recently was interested in submitting ebuilds myself. |
7 |
> Could we possibly come up with a quick and easy system for devs to pop |
8 |
> in, check a list of submitted ebuilds, grab ones that look interesting |
9 |
> to them, test to see if they build/self-destruct, mark them as ~ARCH |
10 |
> (for ARCH they can test on), either clear the initial listing and slap |
11 |
> them into the tree or kick it back to the user? |
12 |
|
13 |
With many ebuilds the actual maintenance and bugfixing is more work than |
14 |
just committing an ebuild to the tree. Basically what most devs do is |
15 |
maintain or co-maintain a number of ebuilds and handle their bugs. If |
16 |
you would be the defacto maintainer of a number of ebuilds you would |
17 |
basically be doing the same as a real dev, but with the limitation that |
18 |
there's allways someone between you and the tree. (and less bugzilla |
19 |
power) |
20 |
|
21 |
> Personally, I found it to be a pain in the rear to see 1 1/2 yr old |
22 |
> ebuilds relating to the packages I was developing ebuilds for in |
23 |
> bugzilla, yet with information so stale as to be stinking the place |
24 |
> up. I think that there are a lot of things that could be offered to |
25 |
> Gentoo users without too much hassle by other Gentoo users as long as |
26 |
> dev says "ok, that sounds fun." I mean, I got passed back and forth |
27 |
> from hardened to general and back a few times and it was all because |
28 |
> the devs reviewing my bug(s) didn't understand the packages. |
29 |
|
30 |
I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready |
31 |
for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand. |
32 |
|
33 |
> I may not know C/C++ very well (minimal understanding at most), so I |
34 |
> wouldn't be able to "fix" something that was broken via diff, but I |
35 |
> sure as heck have the computing power to do 100s of compiles :-D and |
36 |
> thoroughly test certain things before I put them live on my OWN |
37 |
> production machines. Basically, I'm not a programmer, but I can |
38 |
> *still* write a darned good ebuild with the proper help (thx |
39 |
> Spyderous, obz and others in #gentoo-dev). Simply because I can't |
40 |
> program, I can't be a dev... does that mean I can't do thorough |
41 |
> package mangling/testing? Not really... In fact, I've been told, that |
42 |
> with most things, if anyone can break it, I can :-D |
43 |
|
44 |
Writing ebuilds is programming. In ebuilds you just use a different |
45 |
language (bash shell script language), but beyond being able to write |
46 |
ebuilds there is no need for an ebuild handling dev to be able to |
47 |
program. A willingness to learn is always an advantage though. In any |
48 |
case programming is absolutely not the same as knowing C or C++. |
49 |
|
50 |
> Basically, I just find that the entire ebuild submission process could |
51 |
> definitely be streamlined as to take less dev time and be more |
52 |
> rewarding for the users actually doing the submissions. Including |
53 |
> having user response saying, "hey, so and so just bumped package-x.y.y |
54 |
> to package-x.y.z and it builds fine with a renamed and digested |
55 |
> ebuild." |
56 |
|
57 |
I would agree with that. However I don't know how to do it in a good way |
58 |
that preserves quality. |
59 |
|
60 |
Paul |
61 |
|
62 |
- -- |
63 |
Paul de Vrieze |
64 |
Gentoo Developer |
65 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
66 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
67 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
68 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
69 |
|
70 |
iD8DBQE/+qr/bKx5DBjWFdsRAjeVAJ4+jgmhB+lvwB/5V+qTjDuNae4L7QCg0O09 |
71 |
bbcwfONCp82pufrRAGV2y+Q= |
72 |
=GDi4 |
73 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |