1 |
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: |
2 |
> Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 20:20 schrieb Mike Doty: |
3 |
> > Torsten Veller wrote: |
4 |
> > > * Mike Doty <kingtaco@g.o>: |
5 |
> > >> apparent decline of QA in our packages. |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > Why do you want this to be a council topic if it wasn't even a |
8 |
> > > topic here or on gentoo-qa@ ? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Because our QA sucks and noone is doing a damn thing about it. |
11 |
> I disagree. The QA team is doing a lot of work. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> * Mr_Bones still runs QA checks on the whole tree daily and people are |
14 |
> still scared if he pops up and pastes his repoman/pquery output. |
15 |
|
16 |
Last I knew, bones wasn't part of the QA team anymore. Historically |
17 |
he's operated as the scary guy who didn't need a team to spank your |
18 |
ass anyways. (that's a joke about him, not the QA team also). |
19 |
|
20 |
pcheck btw, not pquery (former does quality checks, latter is for |
21 |
metadata lookup). And you claim you can recommend to people which |
22 |
tools to use :-) |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
> * You don't need to be a member of the "QA project/team" to do QA. I say |
26 |
> this here, but i think that should be self-evident. |
27 |
|
28 |
Agreed, although worth keeping in mind the question specifically was |
29 |
what the QA _team_ was up to; thus would try to address that instead |
30 |
of pointing out non-qa team folk do things. Simple example- I still |
31 |
do a bit of QA, doesn't mean it's even remotely quantifiable as QA |
32 |
team work (which is what he was asking) :) |
33 |
|
34 |
Don't particularly want to get sucked into yet another "QA team are |
35 |
lazy slackers" discussion, just pointing out bits above. Advice wise, |
36 |
take it or leave. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
Meanwhile onto the real meat of the email... |
40 |
|
41 |
> * There is at least one outstanding QA issue that i know of which is |
42 |
> related to Portage and can't be fixed w/o slot deps properly. |
43 |
> Read: KDE's problems with ranged deps and the way it currently |
44 |
> breaks the vdb's RDEPEND entries, especially regarding qt and kdelibs. |
45 |
|
46 |
Elaborating a bit, this actually is only a problem for pkgcore and |
47 |
paludis; portage isn't affected since it prefers to try pulling the |
48 |
metadata from $PORTDIR; reasoning is that way screw ups in the |
49 |
metadata that are now locked in the vdb can be worked around via it. |
50 |
You can trigger the same issue in portage via wiping pretty much |
51 |
everything in PORTDIR (switching the tree, or just a literal rm of |
52 |
everything but profiles crap), but that's fairly corner case. |
53 |
|
54 |
Don't much like the behavior myself, but updates/* would need |
55 |
expansion to address the (massively long term) reasoning for portages |
56 |
behavior. Upshot, running from vdb only instead of the dual lookup |
57 |
would speed up portages resolution via less IO/parsing... |
58 |
|
59 |
Either way, the kde/qt issue was known from the get go- since slot |
60 |
deps weren't available when they started down this path, they should |
61 |
have used new style virtuals instead. Yes it's ugly, backwards |
62 |
compatibility usually isn't utterly pretty- upshot of it however is |
63 |
that the upgrade node is just a new style virtual, no real cost for |
64 |
the operation. |
65 |
|
66 |
Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option in |
67 |
my opinion; usual "needs to have been on release media for at least 6 |
68 |
months" would apply here at the very least. The problem is that 2.1.2 |
69 |
is the first portage version to have slot deps- that is a fairly |
70 |
recent stabling, so there still would be a good chunk of time to wait |
71 |
*if* the daft old method of just shoving stuff in and watching things |
72 |
break was took. |
73 |
|
74 |
Meanwhile, worth remembering during the interim while slot deps aren't |
75 |
usable, new style virtual does address it (even if it's a gross trick) |
76 |
:) |
77 |
|
78 |
~harring |