Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:15:13
Message-Id: 20170725141503.GZ12397@stuge.se
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? by Michael Palimaka
1 Michael Palimaka wrote:
2 > The 30 day waiting period is useful for smoking out major upstream bugs,
3 > but can't replace stabilisation integration testing. For example,
4 > package foobar may build fine in ~arch but fails in stable because it
5 > needs a newer libbaz.
6
7 So that's either because of an ebuild bug (incorrect DEPEND) or an
8 upstream bug (e.g. incorrect PKG_CONFIG_CHECK in configure.ac), right?
9
10 It seems to me that waiting (random()=30) days and then testing
11 against (random()=current-version) libbaz in stable isn't amazing. :)
12
13 The ebuild bug could be detected automatically for upstreams using
14 configure.ac and maybe also cmake.
15
16 The upstream bug, well, that's a bit more tricky.
17
18
19 I'll try to write a thoughtful response in the other part of this
20 thread later. Gotta run now. Thanks everyone for your insights!
21
22
23 //Peter