| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 07/17/2013 05:34 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 07/17/2013 11:28 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 07/17/2013 05:17 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On 07/17/2013 04:57 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> I know there was an announcement about the upcoming change to |
| 9 |
>>>> cmake-utils.eclass, however... it is not enough to give a |
| 10 |
>>>> deadline without caring if people actually fixed it by then. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>>>> By doing that you risk breaking stable packages which is not |
| 13 |
>>>> trivial. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>>>> You _must_ do a tinderbox run, test that stuff in an overlay or |
| 16 |
>>>> whatever. You are responsible for ALL reverse deps. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>>>> The way it was done... was not appropriate. Please be more |
| 19 |
>>>> careful next time. There are still incoming bugs about broken |
| 20 |
>>>> base_src_* calls. (see the tracker) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>>> I discussed this with hasufell on IRC, but I'll lay out the |
| 24 |
>>> response on the list too. Yes, this was my fault. We (KDE team) |
| 25 |
>>> tested in our overlay, but none of the packages there use the |
| 26 |
>>> base_src_* calls, which is why it didn't come up in testing, and |
| 27 |
>>> I did not realize that there were packages that did rely on the |
| 28 |
>>> implicit base inherit to call base_src_* directly. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
>> ...and that is why it isn't permitted to directly use an eclass |
| 31 |
>> that you don't inherit. While I agree testing could (should) have |
| 32 |
>> been better, the fact that people ignore the rules for writing |
| 33 |
>> ebuilds shouldn't entirely fall on the KDE team. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> It doesn't matter in the slightest whos fault it is or who should be |
| 37 |
> blamed. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> It is about maintaining stability for the user. Especially when it |
| 40 |
> comes to stable ebuilds. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> That means the methods for eclass changes must be more thoroughly. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
I completely agree with you, the changes should have been tested better. |
| 45 |
The ebuilds with these errors popping up ALSO should have been tested |
| 46 |
better. Considering this is a QA violation, perhaps it is possible to |
| 47 |
add a check in repoman for using something from an eclass which you |
| 48 |
didn't inherit. I doubt the slowdown would be horrible and clearly it |
| 49 |
would catch a huge number of QA violations. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I'm not saying this isn't bad, I'm not saying KDE team didn't mess up, |
| 52 |
I'm saying a lot of people messed up and the not well enough tested |
| 53 |
eclass change found a lot of QA violations which should have been caught |
| 54 |
much earlier. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
- -Zero |
| 57 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 58 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 59 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR5w/IAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKUQ4P/24f/wkmQHCFskq2P+b8xgpY |
| 62 |
PpRkE4XV/AV4oYRFWJ0HNmPcx1gqNVHdjED8yhQ8JqEPFJbgMWRMa1vfkY84Qkqb |
| 63 |
b4CIDcmCd1A9jkdFtP6llgCSP/ub0cokB9O1Cb5kAZrDy+VzctB81x6X2uuUF53N |
| 64 |
dcoVEga4gqZf5W4RBBE5R7yneB92K5bZjulQsPG22pAfWmKCoVUoaPOh4c104mXt |
| 65 |
r+qMboTdHhfNldYdTykKQy5wSMERpKxzPBw9sG3ON96qajSD9nnmVzCVmWZrixfG |
| 66 |
WJWf2G5RhLoIjjGPR0d9wUp5w212W7E6OVIpbeye5nX/YpePEYL4YAboAPbBs9Ws |
| 67 |
XRWJOpy+/+W4Wr7J+pic41S96w2r31kBoXRpR6+Qrn+JZAaWbRBMadqVhHnYJx+w |
| 68 |
cxOFhpKnJRF7l0t76wRevUMoD4aMRi3ZqEjH6SdqIJ9QHq40k6fITrmahq5k8Y24 |
| 69 |
TZOsGVpGi1XhrjrSfNXnVy9Dstjf5D6W39nzYQI+AaXURynV276fb/BPABHdoRuR |
| 70 |
4eITAA6vIQ6rxoTAsOjmy+w2ySOzJkEVK0WrrcaJJAxhu1+ztjmcaq9d5kO7mdIt |
| 71 |
5iyEcgNielhrf7wkpe+yM0SwhE5h1/+znhMRgxMAwuktWxK43KMBV39G28b9XMb6 |
| 72 |
LjG8NvQO4K4LGeNOhWAA |
| 73 |
=elf2 |
| 74 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives