| 1 |
Matti Bickel <kabel@××××.de> posted 20060810215951.GA8456@×××××.athome, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Thomas Cort <tcort@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works? |
| 6 |
>> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper |
| 7 |
>> FEATURES, and an up to date system? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch |
| 10 |
> devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or is the |
| 11 |
> number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-RAM? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Anyways, I agree that posting emerge --info to a highly frequented stable bug |
| 14 |
> is annoying and should be abolished. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Even back before it became the "in" thing, I was posting emerge --info as |
| 17 |
attachments, because it simply fit the bill -- bugzy /says/ to put long |
| 18 |
stuff as attachments. I never did quite understand why all that |
| 19 |
admittedly often useful high-volume spew was tolerated in the bug comments |
| 20 |
themselves. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I like the idea above, tho. For ATs especially, having some place where |
| 23 |
emerge --info could be posted just once, with a link to it instead of the |
| 24 |
duplicated inline /or/ attachment, makes even more sense. Presumably, |
| 25 |
where it's posted could have dated versions, too, allowing for updated |
| 26 |
flags without invalidating the info pointed to for older links. If |
| 27 |
variation off the norm was needed or used for an individual package, that |
| 28 |
could be noted in the comments along with the link to the standard info. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives