Re: [gentoo-dev] Developers, please work on underlinking issues!

[james]

On 08/19/2016 03:49 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:21:16 +0200
>> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:13:14 -0400
>>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you just check your packages occassionally to make sure they build
>>>> with gold it completely achieves the goal, and it will actually result
>>>> in fewer bugs using the non-gold linker as well.
>>>
>>> That's what a tinderbox is for. The only QA problem I see here is that
>>> QA doesn't automate that kind of checks anymore since Diego left. Maybe
>>> QA should ask Toralf to run a ld.gold tinderbox and avoid asking people
>>> to randomly test random packages ?
>>
>> Yes, tinderboxing makes a lot of sense if the bugs are afterwards
>> ignored by package maintainers. Or in the best case, the maintainer
>> tells reporter (Toralf) to file the bug upstream.
>>
>
> TBH, these are really two different problems.
>
> 1.  I think raising awareness of underlinking is good.
>
> 2.  I think encouraging developers to test their own packages with the
> gold linker is good, because it helps accomplish #1, and increases
> their awareness in general.
>
> 3.  I think that having a tinderbox systematically testing using the
> gold linker is also good.
>
> 4.  I think that hitting devs with a cluebat when they ignore valid
> bugs is good.
>
> The flip side of this is that we're not necessarily better off if
> maintainers just abandon packages because they have terrible build
> systems.  At some point you need to work with them.  However, if
> they're not willing to at least stick in a slot operator dependency
> when asked to, then sure we should have a talk with them.  (A slot op
> dep will of course help by triggering rebuilds, but it doesn't
> actually directly fix the underlinking issue, which would require
> fixing the build system.)
>
> I think the big thing is acknowledging that packages that are missing
> dependencies or which are underlinked are defective.  Sure, it would
> be nice if somebody else came along and helped find our mistakes.
> However, that in itself doesn't excuse us from having made them in the
> first place.  And it certainly doesn't excuse giving people a hard
> time when they politely point them out.

+1

Perhaps much of the mechanics and ordinary part of these aforementioned 
task, would make for fertile ground of skills diversification for the 
'proxy-maintainers' ? Understanding and routine usage of a full suite of 
tools available under gentoo, could easily be missed during the proxy 
period. In fact, putting the tinderbox out there as part of the proxy 
training and perhaps available to a portion of the wider gentoo-user 
base, might also be a fertile area for technical growth or the gentoo 
community?

Access to there and other dev tools might be a powerful incentive, if 
packaged up attactively, for the gentoo user community to participate 
more in the less risky parts of gentoo development workflows?


hth,
James