| 1 |
On 06/01/17 15:01, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If packages had a field called "BUGS=" it could contain an array of |
| 4 |
>> bugs a package is known to contain, but can be conditionally avoided if |
| 5 |
>> you're careful. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Packages with non-empty BUGS= fields would be treated as hard-masked |
| 8 |
>> for the purpose of repoman checks, and so packages that depend on |
| 9 |
>> specific version ranges of packages with BUGS= fields are invalid, |
| 10 |
>> and need their own BUGS= fields. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> So, while I'm not sure if this is the best way to go about it, I think |
| 13 |
> what it does point to is there being possible benefit in creating a |
| 14 |
> closer link between our repository and bug trackers. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> We've seen this come up in managing stable requests as well (having |
| 17 |
> users be able to vote on things, having automated testing, etc). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> With the recent stable changes we have bugs being tagged with "atoms." |
| 20 |
> With your proposal we have ebuilds being tagged with bugs. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I can see benefits to having a single way to associate bugs and |
| 23 |
> ebuilds, and making those associations available to bug trackers and |
| 24 |
> package managers. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I think the question is: |
| 27 |
> 1. What is the best way to go about this? |
| 28 |
> 2. Is anybody actually going to make use of this? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> The intended use cases in #2 probably will influence #1. However, it |
| 31 |
> doesn't make sense to have multiple ways of doing these associations, |
| 32 |
> because bugzilla doesn't know anything about the repo, and portage |
| 33 |
> doesn't know anything about bugzilla. Having one place to store the |
| 34 |
> associations and tools to make that information accessible elsewhere |
| 35 |
> makes more sense. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
#gentoo-grumpy :) o/ leio ! |
Archives