1 |
A pertinent discussion. I inadvertently broke the sparc tree by marking what |
2 |
I thought was a architecture-independent script (net-www/raggle) as being |
3 |
stable. The problem was that one of it's dependencies (dev-lang/ruby-1.8.0) |
4 |
was still unstable on sparc. I thought repoman would find problems like this |
5 |
but the version I have doesn't. Oops. Damage now undone and lesson learned. |
6 |
|
7 |
But it seems to me that there is a simple fix that would easy the burden on |
8 |
arch teams to test every single package for their arch. I advocate this only |
9 |
for ebuilds unlikely to cause problems, e.g. scripts and documentation. |
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
I propose: |
13 |
|
14 |
An ebuild that is unlikely to cause problems can be MARKED stable on |
15 |
relevant arches, even if the dev is unable to actually test it. |
16 |
|
17 |
An ebuild is only CONSIDERED stable on an arch if it, and all its |
18 |
dependencies, are marked stable on that arch. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
Problems solved: |
22 |
|
23 |
Arch leads no longer have to test every single ebuild that comes there way |
24 |
-- non x86 arches get package updates quicker with reduced workload for arch |
25 |
leads. |
26 |
|
27 |
No need to write unit tests for packages to help arch leads (lots of work |
28 |
and hard to do in some cases (e.g. interactive progs)). |
29 |
|
30 |
Marking packages stable can no longer break dependencies. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
New problems: |
34 |
|
35 |
Might result in broken software being installed. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
Feedback please. I advocate this approach for 'minor' packages, i.e. nothing |
39 |
fundamental to the working of the system. It's more suitable for scripting |
40 |
language libraries and minor applications (e.g. obscure window managers). |
41 |
|
42 |
Regards, |
43 |
|
44 |
Tom |
45 |
|
46 |
P.S. I'm off skiing for a couple of weeks and so will only be able to lurk |
47 |
on this discussion via gmane.org. |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |