| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Palimaka |
| 2 |
<kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 |
| 5 |
>> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to |
| 10 |
>>>>> stable is always at build time anyway. |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> citation needed |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug will |
| 16 |
>>> happily sign a third party public keyblock's UID using signature |
| 17 |
>>> subkey on smartcard, which results in useless signature that doesn't |
| 18 |
>>> have any effect, but the application builds fine. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> This means gnupg 2.1.21 is not a candidate for stabilization, but it |
| 21 |
>>> certainly builds fine. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves what stable means. Are |
| 24 |
>> we referring exclusively to our packaging or are upstream issues taken |
| 25 |
>> into account too? 30 days seems like a reasonable time for any upstream |
| 26 |
>> issues to be reported. Unfortunately security issues mean that new |
| 27 |
>> releases sometimes get stabilised immediately. Ideally these releases |
| 28 |
>> would carry just the security fixes but that isn't always the case. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> I think we should consider both our packaging as well as upstream |
| 32 |
> issues, and I agree that for most packages 30 days in ~arch is enough |
| 33 |
> time to smoke out upstream issues. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Agree. Arch testing is really more of a sanity test. I think there |
| 37 |
is some value in runtime testing, but perhaps it is a bit of a luxury |
| 38 |
compared to build testing. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
It isn't going to detect obscure bugs. The only way to do something |
| 41 |
like that is to have an extensive testing protocol for each package, |
| 42 |
and almost nobody can afford to do that let alone Gentoo. Upstream |
| 43 |
might be able to do it in some cases, though unfortunately not in our |
| 44 |
environment. To the extent that upstream supplies working automated |
| 45 |
tests we can try to leverage those. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Rich |
Archives