| 1 |
On Tue January 06 2004 1:09 pm, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> 3b) QC, by developer of the strictest sense. A lot of people failto |
| 3 |
> grasp even the most basic concepts of ebuild programming and / or the |
| 4 |
> case of boolean logic. ( if foo then bar ; then baz..... or was that or |
| 5 |
> baz? or ... or.... if foo then bar... then we ignore the case of not |
| 6 |
> foo? ) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > ** Assuming everything is perfect |
| 9 |
> > a. Ebuild works fine, no patches need to be applied/software is now |
| 10 |
> > known stable. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No. its not, we have yet no conclusion as to wether the build is |
| 13 |
> complete or not. Does it build all documentation? are the files really |
| 14 |
> with that license? are the dependencies correct according to |
| 15 |
> configure.* or did it just happen to work on a fully installed system? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Is all functionality accounted for in the dependencies, or will it build |
| 18 |
> without, say X, but with reduced functionality? None of this is checked |
| 19 |
> for, and almost none of them are accountable by automagic. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I guess I think a little differently in that my response to the above is: You |
| 22 |
mean ebuild creators don't already do this? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't say that to be funny, honest. I just can't seeing letting ANYONE even |
| 25 |
see an ebuild I create without having done all those checks in the first |
| 26 |
place! Then after that I would give it to my sponsor to give a brutal |
| 27 |
evaluation of it and then and only then after further changes and testing |
| 28 |
would I ask it to be included in the tree. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I don't know maybe I'm wierd or something it just comes from my early |
| 31 |
programming instructors in the mid 80s, document, document, document, test, |
| 32 |
test, test and then test some more. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Conclusion : please, write a GLEP. i want to see this discussed more, |
| 35 |
> but in a whole new thread. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Agree this thread is dead. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I feel I got a much better understanding of the whole gentoo dev process and I |
| 40 |
feel it was pretty good and most of it was useful back and forth. Overall a |
| 41 |
decent thread I think. Lets all just try to relax now. :) Let's go back to |
| 42 |
playing nice in the sandbox :) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
BTW, Happy new year! |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Robert |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives